United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Pollution Prevention
and Toxics
EPA 747-R-98-008
October 1998
Lead-Cleaning Efficacy
Follow-Up Study
-------
October 1998
EPA747-R-98-008
Lead-Cleaning Efficacy Follow-Up Study
Technical Branch
National Program Chemicals Division
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington DC 20460
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been prepared for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The material in this document has been
subject to EPA technical and policy review and approved for publication as an EPA report.
The use of trade names or commercial products does not constitute Agency endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
CONTRIBUTING ORGANIZATIONS
The study described in this report was funded by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The study was managed by EPA and conducted by Midwest
Research Institute (MRI) with the assistance of Westat, Inc., under contract to EPA. Each
organization's responsibilities are listed below.
Midwest Research Institute (MRI)
MRI, assisted by Westat, Lie., worked with EPA to design this follow-up study to a
previous EPA study performed jointly by Westat and MRI. MRI then conducted all
laboratory sampling and chemical analyses. Upon completion of the laboratory activities,
MRI performed the statistical analysis and prepared and edited the report
Westat, Inc.
Westat, Inc., assisted MRI in the development of the experimental design based on the
results from the previous study and EPA's requirements for this follow-up study.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPA was responsible for managing the study; providing technical oversight, guidance
and direction; and overseeing the peer review and finalization of the report. Dr. Benjamin
S. Lim was the Work Assignment Manager for this task, and the EPA Project Officer was
Mr. Samuel F. Brown.
-------
Executive Summary
In the past, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended the use of
trisodium phosphate (TSP) detergent to clean lead-contaminated dust from surfaces after
residential lead hazard control work to achieve post-abatement clearance standards. This
recommendation was often assumed to apply to the general cleaning of lead-contaminated
dust during ongoing exposure reduction activities. Because of the negative impact of
phosphate detergents on the ecology of aquatic ecosystems, questions arose as to the
scientific basis for recommending TSP and about the effectiveness of other cleaners.
In 1996, an EPA study was conducted to determine the relative effectiveness of many
commercially available cleaners for cleaning lead-contaminated soil from surfaces similar
to floors and walls. The results of that study, to be used to support EPA's recommenda-
tions to the public on methods for removing lead-contaminated dust and soil from surfaces,
are published in the EPA report entitled "Laboratory Study of Lead-Cleaning Efficacy,"
publication No. EPA-747-R-97-002, March 1997.1 That study was designed to determine
if and how cleaner characteristics such as pH, phosphate content, surfactant type, and
surface tension affect the relative cleaning efficacy as measured by the quantity of lead
picked up by a baby wipe after the test surfaces were cleaned. Based on the results
reported in the study, it was shown that of the cleaner characteristics tested, only surface
tension appeared to be related to how well the cleaners cleaned the lead-containing soil
from the surfaces; cleaners with lower surface tensions appeared to clean the surfaces
slightly better than cleaners with higher surface tension. However, surface tension was a
measured cleaning agent property, not a controlled variable.
The results from this previous study provided only weak evidence for the selection of a
cleaning detergent for the purpose of cleaning lead-contaminated dust from surfaces in
homes. By design and availability, the commercially available cleaners used in the previous
study covered only a narrow range of surface tension and phosphate content. The EPA
thus sponsored a follow-up study to further investigate the effect of surface tension and
phosphate content on lead-cleaning efficacy.
This follow-up study consisted of the selection of a commercially available hand
dishwashing detergent to assess the effect of surface tension on lead-cleaning efficacy of a
standard sponge-cleaning procedure. Four surface tensions, 30,40,60, and 70 dyne/cm,
were approximated by mixing the four amounts of cleaning agent of 6.36,0.050,0.008,
and 0 g, respectively, into 1 gallon of water. Additionally, the effect of phosphate content
on lead-cleaning efficacy was investigated by adding known amounts of anhydrous
trisodium phosphate to the cleaning solutions corresponding to concentrations of 0, 3,11,
and 14 grams of phosphorus per gallon (g P/gal). This design provided 16 cleaning
solutions to be tested.
Tests were conducted using two types of surfaces—enamel-painted birch plywood and
latex-painted birch plywood—each one foot square (called coupons). Two types of soil
-------
were used: one contained some vegetable oil, the other, a dry soil, contained no added oil.
A total of 128 coupons were soiled then cleaned with a sponge containing the cleaning
solution. Half the coupons were then wiped with a commercially available, pre-wetted
baby wipe, the other half were not. All coupons were then cored to obtain coupon samples.
All sponges, wipes, and core samples were analyzed by ICP and GFAA, if necessary, for
lead content. The percentage of lead removed by the sponge and the wipe and that
remaining on the coupon was statistically analyzed to quantify the effect, if any, of surface
tension and phosphate content, on the cleaning efficacy of the various cleaning solutions.
Based on the 128 sponge-cleaning tests, 64 wipe tests, 64 coupon tests from wiped
surfaces, and 64 coupon tests from 64 non-wiped surfaces, the following conclusions were
drawn.
• Approximately 72 to 74 percent of the lead applied was removed by the sponge.
• Approximately 1.3 to 1.6 percent of the lead applied was removed by the wipes
after the surfaces were cleaned by the sponge.
Approximately 20 to 23 percent of the lead applied remained on the coupons after
sponge-cleaning and wiping.
• Approximately 22 to 26 percent of the lead applied remained on the coupons after
sponge-cleaning only.
• The total percentage of lead accounted for in this study was estimated at
approximately 95 to 99 percent, leaving approximately 0.9 to 5.3 percent
unaccounted for.
The amount of lead picked up by the wipe from the sponge-cleaned surface was
estimated at approximately 2 percent in the previous study. This estimate is comparable to
the slightly lower estimate of 1.3 to 1.6 percent found in mis study.
In contrast, the estimated amount of lead remaining on the cleaned surface, expressed
in percentage of applied amount, is significantly higher in this study than in the previous
study: 20 to 26 percent versus 7 percent. The estimate of 20 to 26 percent was directly
estimated from cleaning tests in this study. Since neither sponges nor surface samples were
analyzed in the previous study, the percentage of lead removed by a cleaner and sponge
was based on a small set of wipe cleaning experiments. In that study, the assumption was
made that two baby wipes would remove similar quantities of lead as would a cleaner and
sponge. That estimate was found to be roughly 91 percent. By subtraction, the percentage
of lead remaining on a cleaned and wiped surface was estimated at 100 percent -
91 percent - 2 percent = 7 percent.
VI
-------
The analysis of the effect of surface tension and phosphate content on cleaning
efficacy provided the following results:
• Overall, surface tension and phosphate content had no statistically significant
effect on the residual lead found on coupons. This is true whether the coupons
were wiped or not after sponge cleaning.
• When sponge and wipe results were examined, both surface tension and
phosphate content had an overall statistically significant effect on cleaning
efficacy. However, no consistent pattern in the effect of these two factors on
cleaning efficacy could be found. That is, no monotonic relationship could be
found between the levels (values) of these factors and the resulting cleaning
efficacy. This lack of consistent pattern was found in sponges and wipes. For
example:
- Across all coupon surface types, soil types, and phosphate content levels, it
was found that lower surface tension cleaning solutions are associated with
better sponge cleaning. However, this significant surface tension effect is
masked by interactions with the type of coupon surface and soil type.
When looking individually at the four combinations of surface type and soil
type, surface tension was no longer predicting cleaning efficacy when using a
sponge.
- Only when dry soil was applied to latex-painted surfaces did phosphate
content affect cleaning efficacy when a sponge was used. However, no
meaningful relationship between cleaning efficacy and phosphate content
level could be found. In other words, cleaning efficacy did not increase or
decrease consistently with phosphate content.
- Surface tension had a small but significant effect on the ability of wipes to
pick up lead from all surfaces. It was found that the percentage amount of
lead picked up by the wipe increased with increasing surface tension of the
cleaning solution.
The effect of surface type and soil type on cleaning efficacy was also investigated.
The analysis provided the following results:
• Surface type (enamel- and latex-painted plywood surfaces), soil type (dry and
oily), and their interaction had in most cases a significant effect on lead cleaning
efficacy.
Although latex-painted surfaces are rougher than enamel-painted surfaces, the
percentage of lead found in the sponge did not reflect that fact. However, wipes
picked up a higher percentage lead from latex-painted surfaces than from enamel-
vii
-------
painted surfaces after sponge-cleaning, possibly indicating that rougher surfaces
are more difficult to clean.
• The above finding could not be confirmed when looking at the residual lead on
the coupons. In those cases (wiped and non-wiped coupons), the trend was
counter-intuitive in that a higher residual lead was found on enamel- (smooth)
than latex- (rough) painted surface.
• Generally, an oily soil surface was more difficult to clean than a dry soil surface.
Based on this study, no conclusive evidence was found to recommend trisodium
phosphate (TSP) or high phosphate detergent cleaners for lead removal inside homes. In
addition, the weak evidence found in the previous study that cleaners with lower surface
tension appear to clean soiled surfaces slightly better than cleaners with high surface
tension could neither be refuted nor strengthened. However, EPA still recommends that
either a general all-purpose cleaner or a cleaner made specifically for lead should be used
for both general cleaning and for post-intervention cleaning. Household cleaning using one
of these cleaning agents is likely to remove more leaded soil and dust than does water
alone.
The extent to which these conclusions, based on laboratory investigation, apply to
homes in real-life situations is a matter of judgment. Cleaning home interiors with a damp
sponge or cloth will likely remove significant amounts of lead-containing soils. Water
alone would do an adequate job, but considering that most cleaning is done by repeatedly
wiping a soiled surface and rinsing the sponge or cloth into a bulk cleaning solution, a
common household cleaner would probably help keep the soil in suspension, thus lessening
the redeposition of the soil back onto the surface being cleaned. General home cleaning
will thus further assist in the prevention of childhood lead poisoning.
vin
-------
Appendices
Appendix A—Test Schedule
Appendix B—Laboratory Data—Test and QC Samples
-------
Appendices
Appendix A—Test Schedule
Appendix B—Laboratory Data—Test and QC Samples
-------
Figures
Figure 2-1. Distribution of Percentage of Lead Found in Sponges, Wipes, and on
Coupons (Wiped and Not Wiped), by Surface and Soil Types
(Log-scale) 2-2
Figure 4-1. Diagram of Soil Application Procedure 4-3
Figure 4-2. Diagram of Core Hole Locations on Coupon 4-4
Figure 5-1. LCS Percent Recovery Control Chart 5-5
Figure 5-2. SRM Percent Recovery Control Chart 5-6
Figure 6-1. Differences Between Nominal and Measured Surface Tension Levels ... 6-3
Figure 6-2. Relationship Between Cleaning Solution Concentration (Log Scale) and
Surface Tension 6-5
Figure 6-3. Distribution of Precleaning Lead Concentrations
by Soil and Sample Types 6-8
Figure 7-1. Mean Cleaning Efficacy of Sponges versus Phosphate Content When
Used on Latex-Painted Coupons Soiled with Dry Soil 7-4
Figure 7-2. Percent Lead Removed by Sponge Versus Surface Tension, Separately by
Substrate and Soil Type 7-6
Figure 7-3. Mean Cleaning Efficacy of Wipes Versus Phosphate Content 7-8
Figure 7-4. Mean Cleaning Efficacy of Wipes Versus Surface Tension, Separately by
Substrate and Soil Types 7-10
Figure 7-5. Residual Lead Remaining on Coupons After Sponge Cleaning and Wiping
Versus Surface Tension, Separately by Substrate and Soil Type 7-12
Figure 7-6. Residual Lead Remaining on Coupons After Sponge Cleaning Only
Versus Surface Tension, by Substrate and Soil Types 7-15
Figure 7-7. Total Percentage of Lead Accounted for Versus Surface Tension, by
Substrate and Soil Types 7-18
XI
-------
Tables
Table 3-1. Number of Cleaning Solutions Tested for Each Combination of
Phosphate Content and Surface Tension 3-2
Table 3-2. Test Schedule of Proposed Precleaning Tests 3-4
Table 3-3. Test Schedule of Blank Soil Tests 3-4
Table 3-4. Summary of Field Samples Generated 3-5
Table 4-1. Type and Number of Samples by Analytical Method 4-7
Table 5-1. Laboratory Control Sample Results by Matrix 5-4
Table 5-2. Standard Reference Material Results by Matrix 5-7
Table 5-3. Matrix Method Blank Sample Results by Matrix 5-7
Table 6-1. Phosphate Content and Surface Tension Statistics 6-2
Table 6-2. Precleaning Sample Lead Results 6-7
Table 7-1. Analysis of Co variance Results: Cleaning Efficacy of Sponges 7-3
Table 7-2. Mean Cleaning Efficacy of Sponges by Phosphate Content When Used on
Latex-Painted Coupons Soiled with Dry Soil 7-4
Table 7-3. Regression Statistics of Percent Lead Removed by Sponge versus Surface
Tension (Nonsignificant Results) 7-5
Table 7-4. Analysis of Covariance Results: Cleaning Efficacy of Wipes 7-7
Table 7-5. Mean Cleaning Efficacy of Wipes, Separately for Phosphate Content,
Substrate Type, and Soil Types 7-8
Table 7-6. Analysis of Variance Results: Residual Lead on Coupons After
Cleaning with Sponge and Wipe 7-11
Table 7-7. Residual Lead on Coupons After Cleaning with Sponge and Wipe by
Substrate and Soil Type 7-11
Table 7-8. Analysis of Covariance Results: Residual Lead on Coupons
After Cleaning with Sponge Only 7-13
Table 7-9. Residual Lead on Coupons After Cleaning with Sponge Only
by Substrate 7-14
Table 7-10. Analysis of Covariance Results: Total Lead Accounted for in the
Cleaning Process 7-16
Xll
-------
Section 1
Introduction ^
1.1 Background
In the past, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended
the use of trisodium phosphate (TSP), a high-phosphate detergent, to clean lead-
contaminated dust from surfaces, both as a general practice and after remediation of lead-
based paint. The recommendation to use TSP was often assumed to cover the general
cleaning of lead-contaminated dust during exposure reduction activities. Lead-
contaminated dust can result from deteriorated or disturbed lead-based paint, lead-
contaminated soil and street dust, or other sources. Because of the negative impact of
phosphate on the ecology of aquatic ecosystems, questions arose as to the scientific basis of
its recommended use and about the effectiveness of other cleaners, in particular, low-
phosphate cleaners.
1.2 Summary of Previous Lead-Cleaning Efficacy Study
In 1996, an EPA study was conducted to determine the relative effectiveness of
different cleaning agents for cleaning lead-contaminated soil from surfaces similar to floors
and walls. The results of that study, to be used to support EPA's recommendations to the
public on methods for cleaning surfaces with lead-contaminated dust and soil, are
published in the EPA report titled "Laboratory Study of Lead-Cleaning Efficacy,"
publication No. EPA-747-R-97-002, March 1997.1
The objectives of that study were to assess the relative cleaning efficacy of 32 cleaners
(commercially available cleaning agents), tap water of average hardness, and TSP as a
function of the physical and chemical characteristics of the cleaners. Cleaning efficacy was
measured by the quantity of lead (referred to as wipe lead) picked up by a commercially
available, pre-wetted baby wipe after the surface had been cleaned. This measure of
cleaning effectiveness is used by abatement contractors to assess lead dust cleanup after
remediation of lead-based paint. Risk assessors also do wipe sampling of dust to determine
if lead hazards are present in a home.
The study was designed to determine if and how the following four cleaner character-
istics affect the relative cleaning efficacy as measured by the wipe lead:
• pH—The measurement of acidity and alkalinity of a solution. Solutions with a
pH greater than 7.0 are basic (alkaline); solutions with a pH less than 7.0 are
acidic; pure water has a pH of 7.0.
1-1
-------
• Phosphate content—The amount, in grams of phosphorus per gallon of cleaning
solution. Various phosphate chemicals have traditionally been added to detergent
cleaners to enhance their effectiveness.
• Surfactant type—The classification of the surfactant, or wetting agent, in the
cleaner. There are four major classifications of surfactants, of which two were
considered in this study: anionic and nonionic. Anionic surfactants are water
soluble and have negative ions. Nonionic surfactants, a class of synthetic
surfactants, are the most widely used for surface cleaning and have no charge.
Cleaning solutions with a blend of anionic and non-ionic surfactants types were
also included in the study.
• Surface tension (dyne/cm)—The force acting on a liquid's surface caused by
intermolecular bonding interaction. Surface tension is a measure of how well the
cleaning solution will wet the surface to be cleaned: the lower the surface tension
of the cleaning solution, the more effectively the cleaning solution will wet the
surface. Pure water (without a cleaner) has a high surface tension of 70 dyne/cm.
Cleaners, by design, lower the surface tension of water to low values of around
30 dyne/cm.
The tests were conducted using five types of surfaces selected to represent those
commonly found in residential settings: vinyl tile, latex paint on drywall, enamel paint on
birch, lacquer (Fabulon) on oak, and latex paint on birch. In addition to varying the types
of surfaces tested, two types of leaded soil were used. One soil type contained vegetable
oil (oily soil); the other contained no vegetable oil (dry soil). Each lead-containing soil
mixture was dispersed in a mineral spirits carrier, spread on a test surface in a standardized
manner, and allowed to dry before the surfaces were cleaned.
Based on the results reported in the study, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. Roughly 91 percent of the applied lead is removed by cleaning the surface.
2. Roughly 2 percent of lead is recovered from the baby wipe after cleaning the
surface.
3. Therefore, roughly 7 percent of the applied lead remains on the surface.
4. Of the cleaner characteristics tested, only surface tension appears to be related to
how well the cleaners cleaned the lead-containing soil from the surfaces; cleaners
with lower surface tension appear to clean the soiled surfaces slightly better than
cleaners with higher surface tension. However, surface tension was a measured
cleaning agent property, not a controlled variable.
The results obtained provided only weak evidence for the selection of a cleaning
detergent for the purpose of cleaning lead-contaminated dust from surfaces in homes. The
1-2
-------
commercially available cleaners used in the study were selected based on their pH, the type
of surfactant, and their phosphate content. However, cleaning agents currently available to
the consumer (1) are relatively high in pH for corrosion control of steel machine parts;
(2) employ surfactant types, the use of which is based on the profit margin of the cleaning
product; and (3) include a phosphate content that is minimized or eliminated due to
regulatory and marketing constraints. As a result, there was little latitude to study
statistically the effects and interactions of the selected parameters on lead-cleaning
efficacy: most of the cleaning agents studied were high in pH, of the anionic and nonionic
surfactant type, and low in phosphate content. Furthermore, due to the selection criteria,
the cleaning agents tested covered the range of surface tensions from 25 to 50 dyne/cm,
with most of the values being below 35 dyne/cm.
1.3 Objectives of Follow-Up Study
Based on the statistical results from the previous study and given its limitations, EPA
proposed a follow-up study to further investigate the effect of surface tension and
phosphate content on lead-cleaning efficacy. Using a single cleaning agent at various
dilution levels, with the addition of known amounts of phosphate, a study was thus
undertaken to accomplish the following:
1. Determine the lead-removal efficacy of a cleaning agent as a function of its
surface tension, covering a range of surface tensions of approximately 30 to
70 dyne/cm.
2. Determine the lead-removal efficacy of a cleaning agent as a function of its
phosphate content, covering a range corresponding to approximately 0 to
14 grams of phosphorus per gallon of cleaning agent.
3. Quantify the amount of lead actually removed from the test coupon surface by the
sponge-cleaning procedure. This would be accomplished by measuring the lead
content of the sponge, cleaning agent, and rinse water from the sponge-cleaning
process for individual test coupons.
4. Quantify the amount of lead remaining on the surface of the test coupon. This
would be accomplished by measuring the lead content of core samples taken from
the substrates.
Of the five previously tested substrates, only two, enamel-painted birch plywood and
latex-painted birch plywood, were selected. As in the previous study, two types of leaded
soil, dry and oily, were used to soil the test coupons.
1-3
-------
1.4 Overview of the Report
•
The study results as they apply directly to the objectives are presented in Section 2. A
synopsis of the previous lead-cleaning efficacy study is provided in that section also. The
study design is described in Section 3. Section 4 describes laboratory data collection
procedures for the preparation, soiling, and cleaning of the coupons, and the analytical
quantification of lead. Section 5 summarizes the QA/QC results of the study. The
characterization of the cleaning solutions and the soil is described in Section 6. Finally, the
statistical results are presented in Section 7. Appendices A and B provide supporting
analytical data.
1-4
-------
Section 2
Study Summary
When lead-based paint/lead-based paint hazards are abated or interim controls are
performed in a home, the contractor is required to clean the lead-contaminated dust. A
surface is considered clean if the quantity of lead picked up by a baby wipe is below
clearance levels. (The clearance levels from Chapter 5, Risk Assessment, of the
403 Guidance are 100 jig/ft2 for carpets and hardwood floors, 500 ug/ft2 for interior
window sills, and 800 jig/ft2 for window troughs. Lower clearance levels are presently
being proposed that will present even more challenge to the cleaning process.) Risk
assessors also perform wipe sampling of dust to determine if lead hazards are present in a
home. The same approach was used in this laboratory study. Cleaning solutions that
remove most of the lead will leave less lead to be picked up by the wipe. Therefore, for the
most effective cleaning solutions, the quantity of lead picked up by a wipe and the quantity
of lead remaining on the surface will be less than for other cleaning solutions.
Sixteen cleaning solutions were evaluated for their ability to clean two surface types
soiled with two soil types. The effect of phosphate content and surface tension, and their
interaction on cleaning efficacy was investigated. The percentage of lead removed by the
sponge and the wipe and that remaining on the coupon surfaces (either wiped or not) was
estimated for various experimental conditions. To be consistent with the terminology of
the previous study,1 the lead remaining on the coupon is called residual lead and is
expressed as a proportion (or percentage) of the quantity of the lead on the coupon before
cleaning. Similarly, the lead captured by the sponge and wipe is expressed as a proportion
(percentage) of the lead on the coupon before cleaning. The distribution of these
percentages is shown, on the log-scale, in the form of boxplots in Figure 2-1, separately for
the four combinations of soil (dry and oily) and surface types (enamel- and latex-painted).
[Note: Coupon(O) and Coupon(l) on the X-axis indicate sponge-cleaning only and sponge-
cleaning and wiping, respectively.]
This section provides an overview of the study design and a discussion of
conclusions.
2.1 Design
A commercially available hand dishwashing detergent (cleaning agent) was selected to
assess the effect of surface tension on lead-cleaning efficacy of a standard sponge-cleaning
procedure. (The reasons for choosing a hand dishwashing detergent are discussed in detail
in Section 3.2.) The four surface tensions of 30,40,60, and 70 dyne/cm were
approximated by mixing the four amounts of cleaning agent of 6.36,0.050,0.008, and 0 g,
respectively, into 1 gallon of water. Surface tensions below 25 to 30 dyne/cm are difficult
2-1
-------
ENAMEL.DRY SOIL
ENAMEL.OILY SOIL
100.0
I
8 10.0
£
I 1.0
100.0 c
XX
Sample type
LATEX.DRY SOIL
100.0
i. 10.0
£
e
xx
Sample type
S 10.0
*
£
§
1.0
XX
Sample type
LATEX.OILYSOIL
100.0
Pb (%)
10.0
b
XX
Sample type
Legend: coupon(O) indicates that the coupon was not wiped after sponge-cleaning
coupon(l) indicates that the coupon was wiped after sponge-cleaning
Figure 2-1. Distribution of Percentage of Lead Found in
Sponges, Wipes, and on Coupons (Wiped and
Not Wiped), by Surface and Soil Types (Log-scale)
2-2
-------
to achieve for aqueous solutions, thus 30 dyne/cm was the lower limit of the range of
surface tensions. Additionally, the effect of phosphate content on lead-cleaning efficacy
was investigated by adding known amounts of anhydrous trisodium phosphate to the
cleaning solutions corresponding to the amounts of 0,3,11, and 14 g phosphorus per
gallon (g P/gal). The combination of these two factors provided 16 cleaning solutions to be
tested.
Laboratory staff prepared two types of surfaces—enamel- and latex-painted birch
plywood—each one foot square (called coupons), and placed lead-containing synthetic soil
on the surfaces. The lead-containing synthetic soil was a modification of ASTM D4488
soil, replacing the clay in the ASTM D4488 soil with NIST SRM 2710 (5,532 ug Pb/g), a
contaminated soil from Montana. The two surfaces selected for contamination with the soil
were intended to represent all common types of surfaces to be cleaned (e.g., walls, trim,
kitchen cabinets). Two types of soil were used. One contained a small amount of
vegetable oil to simulate dust contaminated with oils from cooking or human contact The
other, a dry soil, contained no added oil.
The lead loadings used in the study correspond to approximately 950 ug Pb/ft2 (dry
soil on enamel-painted surfaces), 1,900 ug Pb/ft2 (dry soil on latex-painted surfaces),
850 ug Pb/ft2 (oily soil on enamel-painted surfaces), and 1,700 ug Pb/ft2 (oily soil on
latex-painted surfaces). To obtain a reasonably even distribution of soil over the majority
of the surface on latex-coated coupons, 4 mL of soil mixture was necessary. Only 2 mL of
soil mixture was required to obtain the same coverage result on enamel-coated coupons.
The coupons were soiled by a single technician according to a full factorial
experimental design. A single technician then cleaned each coupon surface with a given
cleaning solution using a sponge to remove the soil material and the associated lead. Half
the coupons were then wiped using a baby wipe; the other half were not (The wipes used
were pre-wetted, commercially available baby wipes containing purified water and
propylene glycol, as per manufacturer's ingredients list, to wet the wipes and keep them
wet for a long period of time.) All coupons were then cored. All sponge, wipe, and core
samples were analyzed to measure the amount of lead in each type of sample.
2.2 Conclusions
Based on the 128 sponge-cleaning tests, 64 wipe tests, 64 coupon tests from wiped
surfaces, and 64 coupon tests from 64 non-wiped surfaces, the following conclusions were
drawn.
• Approximately 72 to 74 percent of the lead applied was removed by the sponge.
• Approximately 1.3 to 1.6 percent of the lead applied was removed by the wipes
after the surfaces were cleaned by the sponge.
2-3
-------
Approximately 20 to 23 percent of the lead applied remained on the coupons after
sponge-cleaning and wiping.
Approximately 22 to 26 percent of the lead applied remained on the coupons after
sponge-cleaning only.
• The total percentage of lead accounted for in this study was estimated at
approximately 95 to 99 percent, leaving approximately 0.9 to 5.3 percent
unaccounted for.
The amount of lead picked up by the wipe from the sponge-cleaned surface was
estimated at approximately 2 percent in the previous study. This estimate is comparable to
the slightly lower estimate of 1.3 to 1.6 percent found in mis study.
In contrast, the estimated amount of lead remaining on the cleaned surface, expressed
in percentage of applied amount, is significantly higher in this study than in the previous
study: 20 to 26 percent versus 7 percent. The estimate of 20 to 26 percent was directly
estimated from cleaning tests in this study. Since neither sponges nor surface samples were
analyzed in the previous study, the percentage of lead removed by a cleaner and sponge
was based on a small set of wipe cleaning experiments. In that study, the assumption was
made that two baby wipes would remove similar quantities of lead as would a cleaner and
sponge. That estimate was found to be roughly 91 percent. By subtraction, the percentage
of lead remaining on a cleaned and wiped surface was estimated at 100 percent -
91 percent - 2 percent = 7 percent.
The analysis of the effect of surface tension and phosphate content on cleaning
efficacy provided the following results:
• Overall, surface tension and phosphate content had no statistically significant
effect on the residual lead found on coupons. This is true whether the coupons
were wiped or not after sponge cleaning.
• When sponge and wipe results were examined, both surface tension and
phosphate content had an overall statistically significant effect on cleaning
efficacy. However, no consistent pattern in the effect of these two factors on
cleaning efficacy could be found. That is, no monotonic relationship could be
found between die levels (values) of these factors and the resulting cleaning
efficacy. This lack of consistent pattern was found in sponges and wipes. For
example:
- Across all coupon surface types, soil types, and phosphate content levels, it
was found that lower surface tension cleaning solutions are associated with
better sponge cleaning. However, this significant surface tension effect is
masked by interactions with the type of coupon surface and soil type.
2-4
-------
- When looking individually at the four combinations of surface type and soil
type, surface tension was no longer predicting cleaning efficacy when using a
sponge.
Only when dry soil was applied to latex-painted surfaces did phosphate
content affect cleaning efficacy when a sponge was used. However, no
meaningful relationship between cleaning efficacy and phosphate content
level could be found. In other words, cleaning efficacy did not increase or
decrease consistently with phosphate content.
- Surface tension had a small but significant effect on the ability of wipes to
pick up lead from all surfaces. It was found that the percentage amount of
lead picked up by the wipe increased with increasing surface tension of the
cleaning solution.
The effect of surface type and soil type on cleaning efficacy was also investigated.
The analysis provided the following results:
* Surface type (enamel- and latex-painted plywood surfaces), soil type (dry and
oily), and their interaction had in most cases a significant effect on lead cleaning
efficacy.
• Although latex-painted surfaces are rougher than enamel-painted surfaces, the
percentage of lead found in the sponge did not reflect that fact. However, wipes
picked up a higher percentage lead from latex-painted surfaces than from enamel-
painted surfaces after sponge-cleaning, possibly indicating that rougher surfaces
are more difficult to clean.
• The above finding could not be confirmed when looking at the residual lead on
the coupons. In those cases (wiped and non-wiped coupons), the trend was
counter-intuitive in that a higher residual lead was found on enamel- (smooth)
than latex- (rough) painted surface.
• Generally, an oily soil surface was more difficult to clean than a dry soil surface.
2.3 Recommendations
Based on the above findings, no conclusive evidence was found to recommend
trisodium phosphate (TSP) or high phosphate detergent cleaners for lead removal inside
homes. In addition, the weak evidence found in the previous study that cleaners with lower
surface tension appear to clean soiled surfaces slightly better than cleaners with high
surface tension could neither be refuted nor strengthened. However, EPA still recommends
that either a general all-purpose cleaner or a cleaner made specifically for lead should be
used for both general cleaning and for post-intervention cleaning. Household cleaning
2-5
-------
using one of these cleaning agents is likely to remove more leaded soil and dust than does
water alone.
The extent to which these conclusions, based on laboratory investigation, apply to
homes in real-life situations is a matter of judgment. Cleaning home interiors with a damp
sponge or cloth will likely remove significant amounts of lead-containing soils. Water
alone would do an adequate job, but considering that most cleaning is done by repeatedly
wiping a soiled surface and rinsing the sponge or cloth into a bulk cleaning solution, a
common household cleaner would probably help keep the soil in suspension, thus lessening
the redeposition of the soil back onto the surface being cleaned. General home cleaning
will thus further assist in the prevention of childhood lead poisoning.
2-6
-------
Section 3
Study Design
This section provides the overall study design, including the selection of the cleaning
agent, the tests performed, and the number of tests and their randomization.
3.1 Experimental Design
The experimental design for this follow-up study was based on statistical results from
the previous study. Most factors considered here are identical to those investigated in the
previous study, with the exception of the number of cleaners and substrates. As before,
baby wipes were used to wipe the coupons after they were cleaned with a sponge and the
cleaning mixture. However, unlike in the previous study, the sponges, cleaning solutions,
and rinse water were not discarded, but were analyzed for lead content. In addition, core
samples of each coupon were taken, composited, and also analyzed for residual lead. It
was further decided to perform two sets of tests as follows:
• In one set of experiments, the coupons were soiled, then cleaned with the sponge
plus cleaning solution plus water, and men wiped with baby wipes.
• In the other set of experiments ("replicate" runs), the coupons were soiled, then
cleaned with the sponge plus cleaning solution plus water. These coupons were
not wiped with baby wipes so that the number of wipe lead analyses was reduced
in an attempt to control cost and because the previous study already provided
ample information on lead content of wipes.
In summary, based on discussions among EPA and project staff, the previous lead-
cleaning efficacy results, and the objectives of this follow-up study, the following design
factors were considered in a full factorial experimental design:
• A hand dishwashing detergent at 4 concentration levels corresponding to 4 surface
tension values of approximately 30,40,60, and 70 dyne/cm
• Anhydrous trisodium phosphate (TSP) concentration levels corresponding to
approximately 0,3,11, and 14 grams of phosphorus per gallon (g P/gal)
• 2 substrates: enamel on birch plywood and latex on birch plywood
• 2 soils: oily and dry
• Replication of tests
3-1
-------
This design layout resulted in a total of 4 surface tensions x 4 phosphate levels x
2 substrates x 2 soil types x 2 replications = 128 coupon tests. Under this scenario, two
batches of soil mixture of each type of soil needed to be prepared because a single batch of
soil mixture is sufficient for only 40 coupon tests, adding a blocking factor to the design
and the sequence of tests. From this design, a test schedule was developed as follows. The
first soil batch consisting of 8 oily mixtures and 8 dry mixtures was prepared (at the same
time, as in the previous lead-cleaning study). Then half of the first set of tests (with
wiping) and half of the second set of tests (without wiping) was completed. After these
64 coupon tests were completed, the second soil batch, again consisting of 8 oily mixtures
and 8 dry mixtures, was prepared for the remaining coupon tests. Each cleaning solution
was used on 4 coupons (4 combinations of 2 soil types and 2 substrates).
All tests were performed on new coupons; that is, new birch plywood was painted with
either latex (1 coat of primer and 1 top coat of paint) or enamel (2 top coats of paint) paint
and cut into 12 in x 12 in coupons (the thickness of the dried paint film is unknown). The
same procedures for coupon preparation, soil mixture preparation, soil mixture application,
and coupon cleaning as were used in the previous study were followed. The procedures for
preparing the cleaning solutions and coring the coupons are explained in Section 4.1.
Samples were analyzed for lead according to the QAPjP for Pb-Cleaning Efficacy for Lead
Abatement in Housing, Revision No. 4, July 12,1995.2 Additional protocols developed to
address the modified digestion procedures of sponge and core samples can be found in
Appendices B-l and B-2, respectively, of the above mentioned QAPjP.3'4 These
appendices reflect the changes made to Appendix B in its terminology (sponge and core,
respectively, instead of wipe) and in the volume of acid needed to digest the samples that
were larger in weight than wipe samples.
The test schedule based on this design is shown in Table A-l in Appendix A. The
sequence of the cleaning solutions (combinations of surface tension and phosphate content)
was randomized within soil batch, and the sequence for the coupon tests (soil and
substrate) was randomized within cleaning solution. This design required the preparation
of 32 cleaning solutions, each of a given surface tension (4 levels) and phosphate content
(4 levels), in duplicate. A total of 128 coupons (32 cleaning solutions x 2 soil types x
2 substrates) were prepared, soiled, and cleaned. Of these 128 coupons, 64 were cleaned
Table 3-1. Number of Cleaning Solutions Tested
for Each Combination of Phosphate
Content and Surface Tension
Phosphate
content
(9 P/gal)
0
3
11
14
All
30
2
2
2
2
8
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
40 60 70
222
222
222
222
888
All
8
8
8
8
32
3-2
-------
with a sponge + cleaning solution + water. The remaining 64 coupons were cleaned with a
sponge + cleaning solution + water and also wiped with baby wipes. The total number of
cleaning solutions tested for each combination of phosphate content and surface tension in
this design is shown in Table 3-1.
3.2 Cleaning Agent Selection
A total of 32 commercially available cleaning agents, synthetic tap water of average
hardness, and TSP were tested in the previous study. From the 32 cleaning agents, a single
cleaner (a popular, commercial hand dishwashing detergent) was selected. The criteria for
selection were that the cleaner be:
• a phosphate-free cleaner, because TSP will be added to the cleaning solutions at
various concentration levels.
• a neutral to basic cleaner so as to avoid mixing an acidic cleaner with TSP (basic).
• a cleaner that does not need to be used at full strength, such as out of a squirt
bottle; such a cleaner would not allow the consumer to adjust concentration to
change surface tension.
• a cleaner that is easily measured out, that is, in a significant amount to be added to
water (e.g., 1/2 gal). This criterion excluded laundry and dishwashing cleaners
since they are used in small amounts in larger quantities of water.
• a cleaner that is readily available hi households, such as a hand dishwashing
cleaner.
3.3 Precleaning Tests
To verify some of the results found in the previous study pertaining to the lead levels
in the soil mixtures and the rod rinse,1 a small number of tests were performed without
cleaning solution. Based on the above experimental design, verification tests, including
soiling and wiping the coupons with two baby wipes each, were performed on a total of:
• 2 soil mixtures x 2 batches of each soil mixtures x 2 substrates = 8 coupons
Core samples of these coupons were also taken, although this step was not performed in the
previous study. Samples were taken and analyzed by either ICP or GFAA for lead content
as follows:
'The rod rinse is a mixture of a solvent and the soil left on the applicator rod after it was used to spread
the soil on the coupon. See Section 4.1 for details of soil application procedure.
3-3
-------
8 soil mixture samples (2 types of soil mixture x 2 batches of soil mixture each x
2 replications)
8 coupon core samples (4 enamel on birch and 4 latex on birch coupons)
8 rod-rinse samples (1 per coupon)
16 wipes (2 wipes per coupon)
These eight precleaning tests were randomly inserted in the design layout shown in
Table A-l in Appendix A as follows. Precleaning tests using a given soil batch (1 or 2)
were performed when that soil batch was used for the coupon tests. In addition, the
precleaning tests were always performed between two sets of tests using different cleaning
solutions for ease of implementation. Except for these two restrictions, the placement of
the precleaning tests was random within the sequence of the 128 coupon tests. Table 3-2
summarizes the combination and sequence of precleaning tests.
Table 3-2. Test Schedule of Proposed Precleaning Tests
Soil
batch
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Soil type
Oily
Oily
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Oily
Oily
Substrate
Enamel
Latex
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Test sequence
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3.4 Blank Soil Tests
As was done in the previous study, a limited number of tests with "blank soil," that is,
using soil without the leaded component, were performed to identify the magnitude and
source of any contamination. A total of eight coupon tests, requiring the preparation of
both oily and dry blank soil mixtures, were performed using cleaning solution Nos. 16
and 32 according to the test schedule shown in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3. Test Schedule of Blank Soil Tests
Soil type
Oily
Dry
Dry
Oily
Dry
Oily
Dry
Oily
Phosphate
level
0
0
0
0
11
11
11
11
Measurement
method
No wipe
Wipe
Wipe
No wipe
No wipe
Wipe
No wipe
Wipe
Substrate
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Latex
Latex
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Surface
tension
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Cleaning
solution
16
16
16
16
32
32
32
32
Test
sequence
1
2
3
4
5678
3-4
-------
Samples were taken and analyzed for lead content by ICP followed by GFAA, if
necessary, as follows:
• 8 coupon core samples (4 enamel on birch, 4 latex on birch)
• 8 sponge + cleaning solution + water (1 per coupon)
• 4 wipe samples (1 per coupon, if wiped)
Table 3-4 summarizes the number and types of field samples that resulted from this
experimental design. Throughout this report, samples generated by the coupon preparation
laboratory are referred to as field samples, hi contrast, samples generated in the analytical
laboratory, such as method blanks, standard reference material samples, and laboratory
control samples, are referred to as laboratory QC samples. A slight deviation from this
classification is that matrix method blanks, such as blank wipes, blank sponges, and blank
cores, although generated in the coupon preparation laboratory, are included with the
laboratory QC samples.
Table 3-4. Summary of Field Samples Generated
Type of sample
Soil mixture
Rod rinse
Coupon
Sponge + cleaning solution + water
Wipe
All
Precleaning
tests
8
8
8
0
16
40
Blank soil
tests
0
0
8
8
4
20
Cleaning
tests
0
0
128
128
64
320
All
8
8
144
136
84
380
3-5
-------
Section 4
Laboratory Data Collection
The cleaning tests were performed according to the experimental design described in
Section 3.1 and the test sequence shown in Table A-l in Appendix A. Precleaning and
blank soil tests were included as discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. Both the preparation
work for the coupons and the analytical lead work were performed by the same contractor
as that reported in the previous lead-cleaning efficacy study. The following sections
summarize the two types of data collection procedures, referred to as test data collection
and quality control data collection procedures.
4.1 Test Data Collection
A single technician implemented all laboratory procedures according to protocols.
The protocols were those followed in the previous study and are included as part of the
"Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pb-Cleaning Efficacy for Lead Abatement in Housing,
Revision No. 4."2
Soil Mixture Preparation: Two types of soil were prepared following the same
recipes as in the previous study: one soil mixture contained vegetable oil (oily soil), while
the other mixture did not (dry soil). Each soil mixture consisted of 15 g of Standard
Reference Material (SRM) 2710, a lead-containing soil with a concentration of 5,532 ug/g,
as reported by MIST, 7.5 g of Norit A carbon black, 150 mL of mineral spirits, and 6.75 g
of vegetable oil (oily soil only). Blank soils consisted of carbon black and mineral spirits,
with the addition of vegetable oil for the oily blank soil. [Note: The boiling point of
mineral spirits is 179° to 210°C; however, mineral spirits is a fairly volatile liquid.
Mineral spirits was used in this study as a carrier to make the soil fluid so that it could be
spread over the coupons. Vaporization of the mineral spirits was kept to a minimum by
keeping the lid of the container tightly closed. A hole, just large enough to pass the pipette
through it, was drilled through another lid. That lid was used while pipetting the soil
mixture.]
Cleaning Solution Preparation: The 16 unique cleaning solutions (4 phosphate
levels and 4 surface tensions) required for the study were prepared in two batches each.
The four target phosphate levels were achieved by adding anhydrous trisodium phosphate
in amounts corresponding to concentrations of 0,3,11, and 14 g of phosphorus per 1 gal of
cleaning solution. The phosphate content was calculated as phosphorus (P) contained in
reagent grade anhydrous trisodium phosphate. The four surface tensions were obtained by
adding approximately 0,0.008,0.050, and 6.36 g of the cleaning agent to 1 gal of synthetic
hard water corresponding to the nominal surface tension levels of 70,60,40, and
30 dyne/cm, respectively. Once the cleaning solutions were prepared (i.e., after the
4-1
-------
addition of phosphate), their surface tension was measured twice per ASTM D1331, prior
to cleaning the coupons.
Coupon Preparation: A total of 152 coupons were prepared at the onset of the study.
All coupons were made of birch plywood; half were painted with enamel paint and half
with latex paint. (The painted material from which the coupons were made is referred to as
the substrate.) Of the 152 coupons, 136 were soiled with leaded soil, including 128 test
coupons plus 8 coupons for precleaning studies; 8 were soiled with blank soil (i.e., the soil
contains no lead); and 8 were used as matrix method blanks (i.e., the coupons were
analyzed as is).
Soil Application: The leaded soil was spread over a coupon using an applicator rod,
following the procedures described in the QAPjP.2 The applicator consisted of a 0.010-in
diameter stainless steel wire wrapped around a 3/8-in diameter stainless steel rod. The rod
was wrapped with wire over a 13-in length. A vee was produced between each wrap of the
wire so that liquid would escape through the vee. A bead of liquid soil was spread across
the coupon. The applicator rod was then repeatedly moved back and forth across the face
of the substrate coupon to spread the liquid soil material as uniformly as possible over an
area of approximately 10 x 10-in square. The rod was not allowed to roll on the substrate
coupon surface to minimize the amount of soil retained on the applicator rod. The
applicator rod was always parallel to the grain direction of the substrate coupon. Figure 4-1
provides a diagram of the soil application process.
Coupon Cleaning: The soiled coupons were first cleaned using a new 3/4-in x 3-in x
6-in cellulose sponge to which the cleaning solution had been applied, according to the
cleaning protocol. Following the cleaning with the sponge, the coupon was dried, then
wiped with a single baby wipe according to the HUD Guidelines method. The sponge with
its cleaning solution and water was kept for chemical analysis. Note that according to the
study design, only half the coupons were wiped after cleaning. The wipes were also kept
for chemical analysis.
Coupon Coring: Coupon samples were taken for chemical analysis to quantify the
amount of lead remaining on the surface of the coupon after cleaning and wiping. Nine
core samples were taken from each coupon as shown in Figure 4-2. The core samples were
generated by using a 1/2-in diameter wood-coring drill bit. The coring drill bit was
designed to score the coupon at the circumference of the drill bit to reduce the generation of
splinters outside the 1/2-in diameter core sample area. The coupon was scored first on both
plane surfaces, then drilled through. After each drilling, the coring drill bit was brushed off
to remove and collect adhering soil, paint, and plywood. The painted wood chips were
collected and kept for chemical analysis.
4-2
-------
Applicator rod - stainless steel rod,
spiral wrapped tightly with 0.010"
stainless steel wire
I
"V" produced between each wrap of wire
allows liquid to escape and spread fairly
uniformly over coupon
Coupon
\
•Bead of liquid soil
Rod is slid (not rolled) back and forth across
bead of liquid soil to spread it over coupon
Figure 4-1. Diagram of Soil Application Procedure
980276
4-3
-------
12"
12"
980602
Figure 4-2. Diagram of Core Hole Locations on Coupon
4-4
-------
To estimate the average surface of the drilled cores, an estimate of the average
diameter of the holes was obtained as follows. The diameter of three randomly selected
holes in seven randomly selected coupons was measured. The 21 diameters ranged
between 0.5095 in and 0.5250 in, with a mean of 0.5148 in and a standard deviation of
0.0051 in. Thus, the average surface of the 9 holes per coupon was calculated at
1.8736 in2, representing only a small fraction of the coupon surface. Furthermore, when
soiling a coupon, the soil was applied to the entire 12-in coupon minus approximately a
3/4-in border. It is therefore assumed that the soiled surface is approximately 110.25 in2.
However, since both sponging and wiping activities were performed over the entire surface
of the coupon (i.e., 144 in ), it is assumed that the residual lead on the coupons is evenly
spread over the entire surface. To obtain an estimate of the amount of lead remaining on
the coupon (actually on the soiled surface of the coupon), the results from the composited
nine core samples were adjusted upward to the soiled surface of the coupons. The final Pb
result were thus expressed in total ug of Pb per coupon. The correction factor applied to
the core sample Pb results was thus estimated at 76.86 (144/1.8736) and was applied to all
core sample results in this study.
Precleaning Tests: According to the study design, eight separate tests were performed
to measure the quantity of lead applied to the coupons before cleaning (Section 3.3). For
these precleaning tests, the leaded soil (oily and dry, one from each soil batch) was applied
to the coupons (latex and enamel substrates) using the applicator rod according to the
procedures used in all cleaner tests. The applicator rod was then rinsed and the rinsate, or
rod-rinse sample, kept and analyzed for lead content. In addition, samples of the dry and
oily soils were analyzed for lead content. The quantity of lead in the soil and that in the rod
rifise provided an estimate of the quantity of lead applied before cleaning. The coupons
soiled during these tests were wiped with two wipes and subsequently cored. No cleaner
was used in these tests.
Blank Soil Tests: Eight blank soil tests were performed using one cleaning solution
from each batch and two coupons of each of two types. These tests are similar to the
cleaner tests except that the soil applied to the coupons did not contain lead. These tests
were performed to assess potential contamination during testing activities.
Matrix Method Blanks: To assess potential lead contamination during the
preparation steps of the coupons, a number of blank samples were collected: 7 blank
sponges, 5 blank wipes, and 8 blank core samples. These samples were inserted into the
analytical preparation batches and analyzed along with the test samples.
Cleaner Phosphate Content and Surface Tension Measurements: The 32 cleaners,
prepared in two sets, were obtained by mixing known amounts of the cleaning agent into a
known amount of synthetic hard water to approximate the four surface tensions of 30,40,
60, and 70 dyne/cm specified in the experimental design. Synthetic hard water, chosen in
consultation with EPA/OPPT, was prepared according to ASTM D4488. The average
hardness across U.S. cities is near 150 ppm as calcium carbonate, the hardness of the
4-5
-------
prepared water. To each solution, anhydrous trisodium phosphate was then added as
specified by the design to achieve the four phosphate content levels corresponding to 0,3,
11, and 14 g P/gal. Two surface tension measurements were taken from each of the 32
cleaning solutions (4 phosphate content x 4 surface tension x 2 batches), and then averaged.
Phosphate content was calculated as grams of phosphorus/gallon, since reagent grade
trisodium phosphate, anhydrous, was used as the phosphorus source.
4.2 Quality Control Data Collection
All test samples (soils, rod rinses, sponges, wipes, and cores) were sent to the
analytical laboratory for lead analysis. The test samples were digested in batches of 20
with additional quality control samples as required in the QAPjP and according to the
Modified EPA Method 3050A used in this study. The wipe digestion method in the QAPjP
required additional modifications to accommodate the sponge and core samples because
they exceeded the 2-g sample weight limit of the method. Additional protocols were
developed addressing the digestion of sponge and core samples and added to the QAPjP.3'4
An aliquot from each sample digest was analyzed for lead by inductively coupled plasma
atomic emission spectroscopy (TCP) using modified EPA Method 6010A. Samples, which
had a concentration less than ten times the ICP instrument detection limit, were analyzed
using graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy (GFAA) using a modified EPA
Method 7421. A total of 1,321 lead analyses was performed for this study. Table 4-1
summarizes the number of samples of each type generated, separated by analytical method.
4-6
-------
Table 4-1. Type and Number of Samples by Analytical Method
Sample type
Test Samples
Rod rinse
Sponge
Wipe
Core
Soil
Matrix method blank (MMB)
Total
Percent (%)
Analytical method
ICP
8
136
86
144
8
21
403
64.3
GFAA
2
6
56
144
0
16
224
35.7
Total
10
142
142
288
8
37
627
100
Quality Control Samples
Laboratory control sample (LCS)
Method blank (MB)
Standard reference material (SRM)
Total
Percent (%)
Instrument QC samples
Grand total
Percent (%)
20
21
22
63
65.6
393
859
65.0
15
16
2
33
34.4
205
462
35.0
35
37
24
96
100
598
1,321
100
4-7
-------
Section 5
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
An evaluation of the sample preparation and analysis results was performed
throughout the course of the data collection by the Atomic Spectroscopy Facility Group
Leader and by the program QA Officer (QAO). After final data reduction, an independent
evaluation of the results was performed under the direction of the QAO. The final QC data
were statistically analyzed by the project statistician. The results are presented in the
following subsections.
5.1 Quality Assurance
A complete systems audit was performed on this Work Assignment The system audit
consisted of in-phase audits, facility audits, data audits, and a review and verification of the
final report. The performance of the analytical system used for this Work Assignment was
assessed using the results from the NIST SRM. The results of the performance assessment
are discussed below in Section 5.2 under the Standard Reference Material topic.
Sample identification and calculated lead amounts and recovery results are shown in
Appendix B. These data pertain to all QC samples as well as all test samples generated
during the project. The hard copy and computer records for the work performed by the
contractor laboratory, including the tables for the final report, were audited. All sample
identification codes and data were verified throughout the data handling process. The
items verified during the audit are listed below.
Accuracy and completeness for 15 data packets.
• Completeness, compliance, and accuracy of the laboratory notebook pages,
including the method of analysis, the project number, date of analysis, the
analyst's name, the standards used for calibration, the steps performed in the
preparation of the standards, and the dilutions.
• Accuracy of the value used for NIST SRM 2710, based on the Certificate of
Analysis information.
• Accuracy of the sample identification codes in the report tables, using the sample
preparation inventory listing from the test design.
• Accuracy of the instrument responses presented as jig/mL for ICP and ng for
GFAA in the data calculation tables, using the instrumental raw analysis data.
5-1
-------
• Accuracy of the initial calibration verification (ICV) control charts, using the
percent recovery results from the data calculation tables, separately for ICP and
GFAA.
• Accuracy of the initial laboratory control sample (LCS) control charts, using the
percent recovery results from the data calculation tables, separately for ICP and
GFAA.
• Accuracy of the SRM 2710 control charts, using the percent recovery results from
the data calculation tables, separately for ICP and GFAA.
All QC data were inspected in real time as they were collected and were reduced the
following day. The problems found during this data audit were addressed in a letter to the
EPA Work Assignment Manager and are discussed in the following section.
5.2 Quality Control
This section presents the analysis of the lead levels found in the QC samples analyzed
with the test samples. Three types of laboratory QC samples and one type of test QC
samples were analyzed by ICP and GFAA according to the QAPjP.2 The QC samples
included:
• 21 method blank (MB) samples, used to demonstrate absence of laboratory and
reagent contamination
• 21 laboratory control samples (LCSs), used to monitor method performance and
matrix effects
• 22 standard reference material (SRM) NIST 2710 samples, used to measure the
effectiveness of the digestion and analysis methods
• 21 matrix method blank (MMB) samples, generated during the process of soiling
and cleaning the coupons, to assess lead contamination during the coupon
cleaning process and to determine background levels hi each matrix type: sponge,
wipe, coupon, and liquid soil
Method Blank (MB) Samples: In this study, two types of method blanks were
prepared with each batch of samples: a method reagent blank (MB) and a matrix method
blank (MMB). Both types of blanks are used to measure the extent of contamination
problems associated with sampling, digestion, and analysis. The MB is used to measure
the background levels of the reagents used for digestion plus any cross-contamination that
might occur during the digestion procedure. The MMB is used to assess the background
levels in the collection material, background levels in the reagents, and any cross-
contamination that might occur during the digestion process.
5-2
-------
Twenty-one laboratory-generated MB samples were prepared with the test samples.
Five of the 21-MB results are reported from ICP and the remaining 16 results are from
GFAA. All of the MBs reported by ICP were less than three times the instrument detection
limit. Four of the 16 GFAA MB samples had lead levels less than the detection limit
(0.19 fig Pb/wipe or 0.06 ug Pb/core). Lead levels in the MB ranged from 0.06 to 26.8 //g.
The MB result of 26.8 ug was considered an outlier after performing a Dixon Outlier test
for the GFAA wipe MB results. Excluding the outlier, the average GFAA lead level found
in the remaining 15 MBs analyzed by GFAA was 0.84 ug with a standard deviation of
0.92 ug.
For a method blank to be acceptable for use with the accompanying samples, the
concentration of the analyte of concern should not be higher than five percent of the
measured concentration in the samples. In the wipe batch that contained an MB with an
elevated lead background level, 8 of the 20 test samples prepared could be considered as
having some background contamination. In this study, two types of method blanks (MB
and MMB) were prepared with each batch of test samples to measure the extent of a
contamination problem. The MMB is a more comprehensive measure of the background
level than the MB because the MMB contains both reagents and matrix. The MMB
prepared with this batch of wipes had a lead background less than detection limit and does
not indicate significant lead background levels in the reagents, collection materials, or
digestion procedure. Based on the background level for the MMB, the results for the test
samples in this wipe batch should not be considered compromised.
Laboratory Control Samples (LCSs): An LCS is a blank sample, spiked with a
known amount of analyte being measured and digested along with the other samples in a
batch. The LCS is used to monitor the method performance in the presence of a matrix. An
LCS is prepared by spiking the analyte on a blank matrix being investigated. LCSs were
prepared by spiking an MMB with 100 ug of lead (from a NIST-traceable solution) for a
final digestion concentration of 1 ug/mL. Twenty-one LCSs (9 core, 6 sponge, 5 wipe, and
1 liquid soil) were analyzed, and the percent recoveries calculated. The results shown here
use the GFAA recovery results from the core LCSs and ICP recovery results from the other
three LCS matrices.
One wipe LCS had a low recovery of 3.44 percent. This LCS was not spiked
according to the procedure. This sample was determined to be an outlier using the Dixon's
Outlier Test when compared with the wipe LCS results prepared and analyzed for this
study. The poor performance for this LCS does not affect the results for the batch. In this
program, two types of LCS samples were prepared and analyzed with each batch of
samples, an aqueous spike and an SRM. The result for the SRM associated with this batch
of wipe samples had a recovery of 102.6 percent.
LCS percent recovery statistics are summarized in Figure 5-1 in the form of a QC chart
and in Table 5-1. Excluding the outlier of 3.44 percent, two of the remaining results are
below the lower control limit of 80 percent.
5-3
-------
Table 5-1. Laboratory Control Sample Results by Matrix
Percent recovery
Matrix
(Instrument)
Core (GFAA)
Sponge (ICP)
Wipe (ICP)
Liquid soil (ICP)
No. of
samples
9
6
4a
1
Minimum
72.3
82.8
93.1
86.6
Maximum
99.0
100.1
101.4
—
Mean
86.8
92.7
97.0
—
Standard
deviation
9.61
6.68
3.69
-
• One outlier of 3.44 percent removed.
The LCS acceptance criteria stated in the QAPjP2 are 80 percent to 120 percent
recovery of Pb from the matrix. In this study, all of the LCS samples prepared with a
sample matrix had acceptable recoveries and fell within the acceptance criteria for the LCS
except for two core LCS samples. The core LCS samples had a lower mean value than the
other matrices analyzed, which suggests that this matrix interferes with the recovery of Pb.
The lowest value for the nine LCS samples prepared and analyzed was 72.3 percent. This
recovery is within 1.5 times the standard deviation for this matrix type. When setting up
control limits using the mean and the standard deviation for the core matrix, 72.3 percent
recovery is in control, and all data should be accepted.
Standard Reference Material (SRM) Samples: SRM samples were tested to
monitor variations in the data from one analytical batch to another and to estimate method
recovery for the analytical process. These tests were performed in an ongoing fashion in
the laboratory and were not project specific. NIST SRM 2710 with a lead level of 5,532 ug
Pb/g material was used to prepare the leaded soils in this study, and a 1-g aliquot of the
same SRM was used in the preparation laboratory. Twenty-two SRM samples (8 core,
8 sponge, 5 wipe, and 1 liquid soil) were analyzed, and the resulting percent recovery
calculated. SRM percent recovery statistics are summarized in Figure 5-2 in the form of a
QC chart and in Table 5-2. Of the 22 recovery results, one wipe SRM at 78.7 percent was
below the lower warning limit of 80 percent but above the lower control limit of
75 percent.
5-4
-------
Spiked LCS Recovery for Lead Using ICP TJA-61E or GFM Varian SpectrAA 300Z
(Data are labeled by matrix type)
130%
120% -
110% -
100% -
90%
80% -
70%
4816-8B 4816-17 4816-13 4818-11 4816-23 4816-28 4818-20 4818-25 4818-26 4816-30 4816-37
4816-12 4816-8A 4816-5 4816-16 4816-24 4816-18 4816-21 4816-37 4816-30 4816-32
Reparation Batch Nurter
hstrument% Recovery — LCL
.. UCL
-LWL
. UAL
Labels: W = Wipe; S = Sponge; C = Core; L = Liquid soil
Figure 5-1. LCS Percent Recovery Control Chart
5-5
-------
IMST SRM 2710 Ftecovery for Lead Usirg ICPTJAr61E
(Date are labeled by rralrbc type)
130%
120%
110%
100%
90%
80%
70%
w
c c
I I I
I I I II I I I I
481MB 4816-17 4816-13 4816-11 481643 481629 4816-345 4816-20 481625 481626 481631
4816-12 48164A 48164 4816-16 481624 481634a 4816-18 481621 481637 481630 481632
Reparation Batch Muter
h6tnjTBrt% Recovery -. LCL
.. ua
. UAL
Labels: W = Wipe; S = Sponge; C = Core; L = Liquid soil
Figure 5-2. SRM Percent Recovery Control Chart
5-6
-------
Table 5-2. Standard Reference Material Results by Matrix
Percent recovery
Matrix
Core
Sponge
Wipe
Liquid soil
No. of
samples
8
8
5
1
Minimum
82.4
92.6
78.7
90.7
Maximum
95.4
103.9
106.9
-
Mean
91.1
96.7
95.6
—
Standard
deviation
4.44
3.71
10.8
—
All of the SRM results were within the acceptance criteria of the QAPjP. The data
presented in Table 5-2 show that the results for all SRMs were within two standard
deviations of the mean based on the matrix type. The good recoveries for the SRM suggest
that the reported data for each matrix type is comparable to other batches of similar matrix
that were digested and analyzed.
Matrix Method Blank (MMB) Samples: Blank sponge, wipe, and core samples
were used to determine the background levels, if any, in the materials used. One blank
sponge, core, or wipe sample was included in each preparation batch according to matrix
type. A total of 21 MMBs were analyzed by ICP (9 core, 7 sponge, and 5 wipe samples).
Of the 21 MMBs, only five sponge batches are reported from ICP data in Table 5-3. The
remaining 16 MMBs are taken from GFAA data because samples in the batch were less
than 10 times the ICP instrument detection limit, necessitating analysis by GFAA. Two
blank sponges showed high levels of lead: one at 25.1 ug Pb/sample (analyzed by GFAA),
the other at 130.1 ug/sample (analyzed by ICP). These two high values were identified to
be outliers using the Dixon's Outlier Test. None of the levels found in the MMBs were
below the GFAA instrument detection limit. Statistics for the resulting lead levels are
summarized in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Matrix Method Blank Sample Results by Matrix
Amount (ug) of lead per sample
Matrix
Core
Sponge
Wipe
No. of
samples
9
5'
5
Minimum
0.88
2.2b
0.34
Maximum
7.41
7.39°
2.47
Mean
3.52
4.02°
1.26
Standard
deviation
2.34
1.90°
0.99
' Two outliers of 25.1 ug and 130.1 ug were deleted.
" Minimum value from GFAA analysis.
c Values taken from ICP analysis.
5-7
-------
The MM8 provides a measure of the Pb background level in the matrix. Except for
two sponge batches that showed significant lead levels in the MMB, the levels found in all
other batches is insignificant. The acceptance criteria for the blanks require the blank
concentration to be within three times the instrument detection limit. In all cases (except
for the two sponge batches in question) the MMB met the acceptance criteria.
Background levels in test samples are considered significant if the lead concentration
of the test sample concentration is less than five times the MMB level (provided the MMB
is greater than three times the instrument detection limit). Most of the samples prepared
with the two MMBs in question had lead concentrations more than five times the MMB
level. Four samples from each batch (8 samples total) could be considered as affected by
the high lead levels in the MMBs. However, when analyzing the other quality control
samples prepared with each batch, we consider the lead levels in the MMB to be isolated
cases. The SRM, LCS, and MB in each of these two batches were within the acceptance
limits of the QAPjP. If the contamination had been widespread, all other QC and test
samples would have been affected. We conclude that the MMB, while significant, does not
adversely affect the measurement for lead in the rest of the samples prepared in the
respective batches.
5-8
-------
Section 6
Cleaning Solution and Soil Characterization
The main objective of this study was to assess the effect of surface tension and
phosphate content of the cleaning solutions on lead-cleaning efficacy. Sixteen cleaning
solutions, each in two batches, were prepared to clean coupons previously soiled with
leaded soil. The first step in assessing the effect on cleaning efficacy was to characterize
the prepared cleaning solutions for phosphate content, surface tension, and the amount of
lead deposited onto the coupons.
6.1 Cleaning Solution Characterization
Based on the study design, 16 unique cleaning solutions were prepared using the
selected cleaning agent at four concentrations to approximate the four surface tension
levels of 30,40,60, and 70 dyne/cm. Anhydrous trisodium phosphate was added to these
cleaning solutions in amounts corresponding to the four levels of 0,3,11, and 14 g P/gal of
mixture. Two batches of each cleaning solution were prepared during the course of the
coupon soiling, resulting in 32 cleaning solutions. The surface tension of each mixture was
measured twice and their phosphate content was calculated. The measured characteristics
are shown in Table 6-1.
As shown in Table 6-1, the discrepancies between nominal and calculated phosphate
content, expressed as g P/gal, are negligible. However, the differences between nominal
and corrected measured surface tension levels are considerable. Figure 6-1 displays the
differences (nominal minus measured) in the form of a boxplot. In all but one case, the
measured level is below the nominal level. The differences are consistently the largest at
the 60 dyne/cm level. Although, on the average, the differences are smaller at the 70
dyne/cm level (synthetic hard water without cleaning agent), the measurements at that level
present the greatest variability. The surface tension values for the cleaning solutions
without cleaning agent range from a low of 48.9 dyne/cm to a high of 71.2 dyne/cm, with
an average of 60.8 dyne/cm and a standard deviation of 8.98 dyne/cm. In addition, the
variations between soil batches are large, as shown by the pairs of measurements at each
nominal surface tension level.
These measured surface tension levels of the cleaning solutions were compared to
those of the deionized water used to prepare the cleaning solutions. Twenty surface tension
measurements were taken over a 3-month period; 19 of the measurements ranged from
66.6 dyne/cm to 71.0 dyne/cm (mean of 69.7 dyne/cm; standard deviation of 1.0 dyne/cm),
with one outlying low value at 57.8 dyne/cm. Thus, the large variability in surface tension
of the cleaning solutions containing no cleaning agent remains unexplained.
6-1
-------
Table 6-1. Phosphate Content and Surface Tension Statistics
Soil batch
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Phosphate content (g P/gal)
Nominal level
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Calculated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
11.00
11.00
11.00
11.00
11.00
11.00
11.00
11.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
14.00
Weight of
cleaning agent
fa/gal)
6.29200
6.34000
0.04869
0.04898
0.00840
0.00847
0
0
6.33400
6.30200
0.04927
0.04978
0.00846
0.00829
0
0
6.36000
6.31000
0.04960
0.04935
0.00844
0.00833
0
0
6.33800
6.27400
0.04882
0.04894
0.00840
0.00836
0
0
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Nominal
level
30
30
40
40
60
60
70
70
30
30
40
40
60
60
70
70
30
30
40
40
60
60
70
70
30
30
40
40
60
60
70
70
Corrected
average*
24.5
24.9
34.5
38.1
47.5
50.4
66.8
71.2
28.3
28.8
33.8
37.8
57.0
48.0
67.8
53.3
27.8
27.9
35.2
36.4
45.8
44.7
68.1
49.9
28.1
25.6
32.8
31.6
43.7
47.7
60.1
48.9
Cleaning
solution
no.
16
25
9
21
8
27
3
17
2
28
5
23
1
29
10
30
7
32
12
18
14
31
13
26
11
24
4
19
15
22
6
20
Average of duplicate surface tension measurements. The measured surface tension
corrected according to the ASTM test method for measuring surface tension.
is
6-2
-------
30
20
8 10
e
£
-10
IL--
T7...-
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Nominal surface tension (dyne/cm)
Figure 6-1. Differences Between Nominal and Measured Surface Tension Levels
6-3
-------
The nominal surface tension levels were achieved by mixing a predetermined amount
of the cleaning agent (see column 4 in Table 6-1) into synthetic hard water to which phos-
phate was added as indicated above. (The nominal level of 6.36 g/gal was the level
recommended by the cleaning agent manufacturer. The other two non-zero nominal levels
of 0.008 and 0.050 g/gal were determined hi a range finding experiment prior to the
cleaning tests.) The relationship between cleaning agent concentration and surface tension,
across all phosphate levels, is shown in Figure 6-2. The concentrations are shown on a log
scale. Note that the zero concentration results are artificially shown at the 0.0001 level
(log scale) for comparison. As seen hi Table 6-1, increasing the surface tension from
approximately 30 dyne/cm to 40 dyne/cm required a decrease in cleaning agent
concentration from approximately 6.36 g/gal to 0.050 g/gal, requiring many dilutions of the
cleaner.
The average of the two surface tension measurements for each of the 32 cleaning
solutions was analyzed in a two-way analysis of variance. The nominal surface tension and
phosphate content and their interaction were included in the model. Neither phosphate
content (p = 0.24) nor the interaction between surface tension and phosphate content
(p = 0.59) were statistically significant. As expected, the nominal surface tension was
highly significant (p < 0.0001). The least square mean differences between nominal and
measured surface tensions (each with a standard error of 1.81 dyne/cm) were as follows:
At 30 dyne/cm: 3.03 dyne/cm
• At 40 dyne/cm: 4.96 dyne/cm
At 60 dyne/cm: 11.9 dyne/cm
• At 70 dyne/cm: 9.28 dyne/cm
Based on these results, a decision was made to use the measured surface tension rather
than the nominal surface tension levels in all subsequent statistical analyses. This means
that surface tension will be treated as a covariate rather than a categorical variable in the
analysis of variance modes.
6.2 Leaded Soil Characterization
A number of precleaning samples were generated in the laboratory and then analyzed
by ICP and GFAA, if necessary, to assess the amount of lead deposited onto the coupons by
means of an applicator rod, the amount of lead cleaned off by the wipes, and that remaining
on the coupons, without any cleaning process. A total of 40 soil, rod-rinse, wipe, and core
samples were analyzed.
SOIL SAMPLES: The dry and oily soil mixtures used in this study were prepared in two
separate batches during the soiling process of the coupons. From each of these four
batches, two samples, one of 2 mL and one of 4 mL, were taken and analyzed for lead
6-4
-------
80
70
?" «o
j>
§
1 "
u
i
W 40
30
20
0.00
1
.
1 •
i
I
I
1 i i i i i
001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Amount of cleaning agant (g/gal) (log acale)
Note: The actual 0 g/gal level of cleaning agent is represented on this graph as 0.0001 for
plotting purposes only
Figure 6-2. Relationship Between Cleaning Solution Concentration
(Log Scale) and Surface Tension
6-5
-------
content The two amounts of 2 mL and 4 mL correspond to the amount of soil applied to
plywood painted with enamel and plywood painted with latex, respectively. Thus, a total
of eight soil samples were analyzed for lead content. None of these samples was analyzed
by GFAA.
ROD-RiNSE SAMPLES: Each soil sample was applied onto a coupon using a wire-
wound rod. After each application, the rod was rinsed and the rinsate analyzed for lead.
Thus, a total of eight rod-rinse samples were analyzed. Of these eight samples analyzed by
ICP, two were reanalyzed by GFAA.
WIPE SAMPLES: Each soiled coupon was wiped with two wipes, and each wipe was
analyzed separately. Thus, a total of 16 wipes were analyzed by ICP. The eight first wipes
were analyzed by ICP only, while three of the eight second wipes were reanalyzed by
GFAA.
CORE SAMPLES: Each coupon was cored as shown hi Figure 4-1. The nine core
samples from each coupon were composited and analyzed by ICP for lead content,
resulting in a total of eight core samples. Due to their low load levels, all eight core
samples were reanalyzed by GFAA. The amount of lead found in the core samples was
adjusted to reflect the ratio of core surface to coupon surface as explained in Section 4.1.
The adjusted result is an estimate of the amount of lead found on the entire coupon.
The precleaning lead results are summarized in Table 6-2. None of the lead amounts
was below detection limit. For each of the 8 combinations of volume of soil mixture
(2 mL, 4 mL), soil type (dry, oily), and soil batch (1,2), the fourth column in the table
shows the total Pb amounts per sample measured in each of the 5 samples: soil, rod rinse,
first wipe, second wipe, and coupon (core adjusted for total coupon surface). The next
column shows these results in total Pb per unit of soil mixture (ug Pb/mL). These results
are also shown in Figure 6-3 in the form of a boxplot. The last two columns of Table 6-2
show calculations toward Pb mass balance closure without use of a cleaner; that is, under
ideal sampling and analysis conditions, the quantities of lead could be apportioned as
follows:
Pb in Soil - Pb in Rod rinse = Pb in Wipe #1 + Pb in Wipe #2 + Pb remaining on coupon
For each combination of soil type and soil batch, the two quantities displayed in
Column 6 are those for both sides of this equation. The last column in Table 6-2 shows the
quantity of lead captured as a percentage of the lead applied onto each coupon.
As shown in Table 6-2, the amount of Pb captured as a percent of the amount of Pb
applied onto the coupon exceeds 100 percent for both dry and oily soils. An explanation
of this result could lie in the fact that the amount of Pb remaining on a coupon was
extrapolated based on the nine core samples taken from each coupon. These nine core
samples represent on the average only 1.87 in2 or approximately 1.3 percent of the total
coupon surface of 144 in2. It should be noted, however, that these figures are based on a
small sample size (four dry soil tests and four oily soil tests). A more detailed lead mass
balance analysis is presented in Section 7.6.
6-6
-------
Table 6-2. Precleanine Sample Lead Results
Soil
Soil type batch Sample type
Pb amount (ug)
Pb amount
(ug/mL)
Subtotal
(ug/mL)
Fraction*
(%)
2 mL of soil mixture
Dry 1 Soil
Rod rinse
Wipe No. 1
Wipe No. 2
Coupon
2 Soil
Rod rinse
Wipe No. 1
Wipe No. 2
Coupon
Oily 1 Soil
Rod rinse
Wipe No. 1
Wipe No. 2
Coupon
2 Soil
Rod rinse
Wipe No. 1
Wipe No. 2
Coupon
974.70
33.68
759.86
21.12
319.73
964.72
26.26
831.31
93.74
209.06
783.50
19.65
641.24
14.43
274.39
909.29
19.03
764.21
34.47
260.55
487.35
16.84
379.93
10.56
1 59.86°
482.36
13.13
415.66
46.87
104.53
391.75
9.83
320.62
7.22
137.20
454.65
9.52
382.11
17.24
130.27
470.51"
550.35"
469.23
567.05
381.93
465.03
445.13
529.61
117
121
122
119
4 mL of soil mixture
Dry 1 Soil
Rod rinse
Wipe No. 1
Wipe No. 2
Coupon
2 Soil
Rod rinse
Wipe No. 1
Wipe No. 2
Coupon
Oily 1 Soil
Rod rinse
Wipe No. 1
Wipe No. 2
Coupon
2 Soil
Rod rinse
Wipe No. 1
Wipe No. 2
Coupon
1,931.40
61.33
1,399.90
63.50
496.51
2,004.60
42.34
1,480.10
136.65
379.68
1,550.10
52.83
1,119.60
124.99
442.70
1,987.00
70.21
1,549.10
126.30
416.57
482.85
15.33
349.98
15.88
124.13
501.15
10.59
370.03
34.16
94.92
387.53
13.21
279.90
31.25
110.67
496.75
17.55
387.28
31.58
104.14
467.52
489.98
490.57
499.11
374.32
421.82
479.20
522.99
105
102
113
109
Ratio of amount (d) over amount (b), in 100 percent.
Amount = Soil amount minus rod-rinse amount.
Core amount was adjusted for total surface of coupon.
Amount = Wipe No. 1 + Wipe No. 2 + Core amounts.
6-7
-------
o>
I
*
Oily coupon
Oilywipe#2
Oily wipe#1
Oily rod
Oily soil
Dry coupon
Drywipe#2
Drywipe#1
Dry rod
Dry soil
1 1
m
i
—
{Eh
•ED-
*
1 1
1 1 1
-
H 1 \
\ \ H
•n> '-
0- -
i i i
100 200 300 400
Pb concentration
500 600
Figure 6-3. Distribution of Precleaning Lead Concentrations
by Soil and Sample Types
6-8
-------
ANALYSIS OF SOIL LEAD CONCENTRATIONS: The two types of soil (dry and oily)
were each prepared in two batches over the course of the laboratory study. The lead
concentrations (ng of Pb on the coupon per milliliter of soil mixture used) obtained from
the eight sets of precleaning samples were analyzed to estimate the average quantity of lead
applied to the coupons and whether that quantity is affected by soil type and soil batch.
Similarly to the previous study,1 the amount of Pb in the soil, adjusted for the volume
of the soil mixture and then log-transformed, was analyzed by analysis of variance
(ANOVA). The two factors, soil batch and soil type, and their interaction, were included in
the model. Both factors and their interaction were significant at the 5 percent significance
level: soil batch (p = 0.0122), soil type (p = 0.0066), and interaction (p = 0.0191), based on
a total of 8 samples. The least-square geometric mean concentrations and their 95 percent
confidence intervals are as follows:
Dry soil: 488.4 (465.5 to 512.3) ug Pb/mL of soil mixture
Oily soil: 430.3 (410.2 to 451.4) ug Pb/mL of soil mixture
The result was an average ratio of the lead concentration in the dry to oily soil mixture of
1.13. These lead levels are slightly different from those found in the previous study (dry
soil at 464.0 ug/mL; oily soil at 440.2 ug/mL), and their ratio exceeds the ratio of 1.04
determined from the recipes for the two soil mixtures. The larger confidence intervals as
compared to those from the previous study are mainly due to the smaller sample size (8
versus 48).
ANALYSIS OF ROD RINSE LEAD CONCENTRATIONS: The amount of lead that
remained on the applicator rod after applying the soil mixture to the coupons was analyzed
in a similar fashion to that of soil samples. The effect of soil batch and soil type on the log-
transformed lead concentration in the eight rod-rinse samples was estimated by ANOVA.
Neither factor—soil batch (p = 0.64), soil type (p = 0.52)—nor their interaction (p = 0.29)
had a significant effect on the log-transformed lead concentration. The least-square
geometric mean concentrations and their 95 percent confidence intervals are as follows:
Dry soil: 13.8 (9.7 to 19.6) ug Pb/mL of soil mixture
Oily soil: 12.1 (8.5 to 17.3) ug Pb/mL of soil mixture
These levels represent approximately 2.8 percent of the amount of lead in the soil (either
dry or oily).
ANALYSIS OF SOIL MINUS ROD-RINSE LEAD CONCENTRATIONS: The difference
between the amount of lead in each soil sample and that in the corresponding rod-rinse
sample was used to estimate the amount of lead applied to the coupons. Again, the log-
transformed differences, adjusted for the volume of each soil mixture, were analyzed by
ANOVA using the same two factors and their interaction as above. Both factors and their
interaction were significant at the 5 percent significance level: soil batch (p = 0.0074), soil
type (p = 0.0046), and interaction (p = 0.0161), based on a total of 8 samples. The least-
6-9
-------
square geometric mean concentrations and their 95 percent confidence intervals are as
follows:
Dry soil in soil batch No. 1: 469.0 (441.0 to 498.8) ug Pb/mL of soil mixture
Dry soil in soil batch No. 2: 479.8 (451.1 to 510.2) ng Pb/mL of soil mixture
Oily soil in soil batch No. 1: 378.1 (355.5 to 402.1) ug Pb/mL of soil mixture
Oily soil in soil batch No. 2:461.9 (434.3 to 491.2) ng Pb/mL of soil mixture
Due to the highly significant interaction between soil type and soil batch (see the large
difference between oily batch Nos. 1 and 2 soils), all lead amounts quantified in the
sponge, wipe, and core samples were adjusted for the above soil lead levels separately for
each soil type and soil batch when estimating cleaning efficacy (Section 7).
6-10
-------
Section 7
Statistical Results
This section presents the statistical analysis results as they relate to the study
objectives: (1) determine the lead-removal efficacy of a cleaning solution as a function of
its surface tension and phosphate content; (2) quantify the amount of lead actually removed
from the coupon surface by the sponge-cleaning procedure; and (3) quantify the amount of
lead remaining on the surface of the test coupon. In accordance with the study design, lead
data were obtained from cleaning tests performed on 128 coupons. All coupons were
cleaned using a sponge and a cleaning solution. Half of the coupons were then wiped with
a baby wipe; the other half were not wiped; all coupons were cored. The statistical analysis
results of the amount of lead in each of the four sample types—sponge, wipe, coupon with
wiping, coupon without wiping—are presented separately in the following sections. The
effect of surface tension and phosphate content of the cleaning solution on the results is
discussed in each section.
7.1 Treatment of Surface Tension in the Statistical Analyses
According to the full factorial experimental design presented in Section 3.1, all
combinations of phosphate content (0,3,11, and 14 g P/gal), surface tension (30,40,60,
and 70 dyne/cm), soil type (dry and oily), soil batch (1 and 2), and substrate (enamel- and
latex-painted plywood) were tested twice. This replication was, in effect, a pseudo-
replication, since the testing required that the 16 cleaning solutions (4 phosphate levels x
4 surface tension levels) be prepared in two batches, resulting in 16 pairs of cleaning
solutions. The two theoretically identical cleaning solutions in each pair, however, were
each characterized as to their surface tension and phosphate content. As was shown in
Table 6-1, the discrepancies between pairs of surface tension measurements are consider-
able at the higher nominal surface tension levels (60 and 70 dyne/cm), while the discrep-
ancies between measured and nominal phosphate levels are negligible. Therefore, it was
decided that the characterization of the cleaning solution in its ability to wet a surface
would be more reliably characterized in this study by using the measured surface tension of
each cleaning solution. Thus, in all subsequent statistical analyses, the measured surface
tension, rather than the four nominal levels, was used as a predictor variable for lead-
cleaning efficacy of the cleaners. Surface tension was treated as a continuous independent
variable, or covariate, in the statistical analysis.
7.2 Percentage Amount of Lead Removed by Sponge
For each cleaner test, the amount of lead applied to the coupon was predicted by the
amount of lead in the soil minus the amount of lead in the rod rinse (Section 6.2). The
estimates of lead quantities applied, separately for each batch of dry and oily soil, were
7-1
-------
469.0 ug/mL for dry soil from batch 1; 479.8 ug/mL for dry soil from batch 2;
378.1 ug/mL for oily soil from batch 1; and 461.9 ug/mL for oily soil from batch 2. The
dependent (response) variable used in the analysis was the amount of lead removed by the
sponge expressed as a percentage of the quantity of lead applied on the coupon. The
quantities of lead applied, expressed in ug/mL of soil mixture, were adjusted for the
amount of soil mixture applied, that is, 2 mL on enamel-painted coupons, and 4 mL on
latex-painted coupons. The dependent variable was further log-transformed for statistical
analysis; thus, the quantity, ln[(amount Pb removed by sponge/amount Pb applied) x 100]
is the variable analyzed.
An analysis of covariance of the log-transformed percentage of lead removed by the
sponge was performed. The main effects (phosphate content, soil type, and substrate) and
all their two- and three-way interactions were included in the model. Soil batch was
included as a blocking factor. Surface tension was treated as a continuous variable, or
covariate, and was crossed with all other terms included in the model. Thus, a total of
13 terms were included in the model.
A significance level of 5 percent was selected throughout. The data were inspected for
statistical outliers, based on the extreme studentized residuals. A total of six outliers were
sequentially excluded from analysis (e.g., one at a time, and the model rerun each time).
Additionally, based on the significance level (p-value) of the F-statistic calculated for all
terms in the model, terms in the model were sequentially removed from analysis if the
F-value was below 1.5. This is based on the assumption that although a factor or
interaction might not be statistically significant (i.e., p < 0.05), the inclusion of that factor if
its F-value is above 1.5 will provide a more sensitive test for the remaining statistically
significant terms in the analysis of variance. The final results from this analysis of
covariance are summarized in Table 7-1. All main effects and interactions with an F-value
of 1.5 or more are included in the model. Only those main effects and interactions with a
p-value of 0.05 or more are considered to be statistically significant.
Overall, the geometric mean percent amount of lead removed by the sponge is
estimated at 72.7 percent, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 71.5 to 73.9 percent. Of
the main effects and interactions included in Table 7-1 (all with F-values above 1.5), only
three are statistically significant at the 5 percent level: the three-way surface tension by
substrate by soil type interaction (p = 0.0006); the covariate, surface tension (p = 0.0015);
and the two-way surface tension by phosphate content interaction (p = 0.0210). Note that
phosphate content is not a significant factor in this model.
7-2
-------
Table 7-1. Analysis of Covariance Results: Cleaning Efficacy of Sponges
Dependent (response)
vgriable
Number of observations
Root mean square error
Mean response
Factor
Surface tension
Phosphate
Substrate
Soil type
Surface tension * phosphate
Phosphate * substrate
Surface tension * substrate *
soil type
Log-transformed percentage of lead removed using sponge to clean
coupons
122 (6 statistical outliers removed)
0.0907 (corresponding to a coefficient of variation in the
untransformed unit of 9.5 percent)
4.2859 (corresponding to a geometric mean in the untransformed
unit of 72.7 percent)
Degrees of
freedom
1
3
1
1
3
3
3
Sum of
squares
0.0871
0.0410
0.0201
0.0153
0.0835
0.0557
0.1537
Mean
square
0.0871
0.0137
0.0201
0.0153
0.0278
0.0186
0.0512
F ratio
10.59
1.66
2.44
1.86
3.38
2.25
6.23
Prob>F
0.0015
0.1801
0.1210
0.1751
0.0210
0.0863
0.0006
Whole-model analysis of variance test
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Degrees of
freedom
15
106
121
Sum of
squares
0.7448
0.8722
1.6170
Mean
square
0.0497
0.0082
F-ratio
6.03
Prob>F
0.0001
In this overall covariance model, surface tension has a statistically significant slope of
-0.0036 ln(percentage amount of lead removed) per dyne/cm [with a standard error of
0.0017 ln(%) per dyne/cm]. The negative overall slope would indicate that the percentage
of lead removed by the sponge decreases with increasing surface tension, or conversely,
that lower surface tension cleaning solutions are associated with better sponge cleaning.
However, the significant three-way interaction between surface tension (covariate) and the
two-way interaction of substrate by soil type indicates that the regression lines of
percentage lead removed by the sponge versus surface tension in the four cells defined by
substrate type (enamel and latex) and soil type (dry and oily) are not parallel. The analysis
of covariance was therefore followed up by four separate analyses of covariance, one for
each of the four combinations of substrate and soil type. Phosphate content was included
as a main effect, along with surface tension (the covariate), and then* interaction. The inter-
action term, surface tension by phosphate content, was not significant in any of the four
models. Thus, the four analysis of covariance models were rerun without that term,
including the covariate and the main effect only. The data were checked for statistical
outliers and two additional outliers were removed.
Following sequential removal of non-significant effects (F-value below 1.5), only one
model was significant: phosphate content was statistically significant (p = 0.0005) for the
7-3
-------
latex and dry soil combination. Surface tension was not significant in any of the models.
Table 7-2 summarizes the percentage of lead removed by the sponge as a function of
phosphate content when cleaning latex-painted coupons soiled with dry soil. These
statistics include the least-square geometric mean percent amount of lead removed by the
sponge and its 95 confidence limits. These statistics are also displayed in Figure 7-1
and show an inconsistent trend across the four levels of phosphate content. The largest
percentage of lead (78 percent) is removed when the phosphate content of the cleaning
solution is 3 g P/gal, then decreases with increasing phosphate content; the lowest cleaning
efficacy (67 percent) is obtained when the cleaning solution contains no phosphate.
Table 7-2. Mean Cleaning Efficacy of Sponges by Phosphate
Content When Used on Latex-Painted Coupons
Soiled with Dry Soil
Phosphate
content
(9 P/gal)
0
3
11
14
Percentage of Pb removed by sponge (%)
Mean
67
78
70
69
95% Confidence limits
Lower
63
74
66
65
Upper
70
83
74
73
85%
Phosphate content (g P/gal)
••-Mean
95% LL
05% UL
Figure 7-1. Mean Cleaning Efficacy of Sponges versus Phosphate Content
When Used on Latex-Painted Coupons Soiled with Dry Soil
7-4
-------
The percent of lead removed by the sponge could not be predicted by the surface
tension of the cleaning solution for the four combinations of substrate and soil type.
Nevertheless, for illustrative purposes, Figure 7-2 shows a scatterplot of the percentage
amount of lead removed by the sponge as a function of surface tension, separately for each
combination of substrate and soil type. In each case, a regression line on the log-scale
is shown, although not significant. Regression statistics are summarized in Table 7-3,
showing the slope (on the log-scale) and intercept of each regression, noting that neither
regression is significant.
Table 7-3. Regression Statistics of Percent Lead Removed by
Sponge versus Surface Tension (Nonsignificant Results)
Substrate
type
Enamel
Latex
Soil
type
Dry
Oily
Dry
Oily
No. of
measurements
29
31
32
28
Intercept*
(%)
77
84
72
71
Slope of
surface tension"
-0.0013
-0.0013
-0.0004
-0.0007
Significance
level (p-value)
0.29
0.25
0.72
0.59
" Intercept in untransformed scale.
b Slope on log-scale.
In summary, except for the single case of latex-painted coupons soiled with dry soil in
which phosphate content was statistically significant, none of the factors considered in the
models—surface tension and phosphate content—had a significant effect on the amount of
lead removed by the sponge, expressed as a percent of lead applied.
7.3 Percentage Amount of Lead Removed by Wipe
Of the 128 coupons soiled and cleaned using the sponge and the cleaning solution,
half were wiped with a baby wipe. The design used was a balanced full factorial design
with respect to phosphate content, nominal surface tension, substrate, and soil type. How-
ever, soil batch was confounded with the cleaning solutions as per design (Appendix A)
and was not included in the analysis. The statistical approach for analysis of the cleaning
efficacy of the wipes was similar to that above, with the omission of soil batch. The log-
transformed percentage amount of lead removed by the wipe was analyzed in an analysis of
covariance, including all factors, their two-way interactions, and selected three-way
interactions. Terms in the models for which the F-value was below l.S were excluded
from the model in a sequential fashion. The final analysis of covariance model results are
shown in Table 7-4.
7-5
-------
Enamel, Dry Soil
f Enamel, Oily Soil
£4.4
I 4.3
£4'2
*4,
o o
o
00
g4gl—I—I—I—I—I—I
S 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Latex, Dry Soil
JL
I4'5
«
£4.4
•p
§4.3
£
2,4.2
a.
• 41
I '
11111
o
ft
o °
o
0 0
-oO°° 0 „ °
0 °
0 0
. °0
0
1 1 1 1 1
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Latex, Oily Soil
i4.2-
i4.1
4.Q
o
o
- o
o
'20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Figure 7-2. Percent Lead Removed by Sponge Versus Surface Tension,
Separately by Substrate and Soil Types
7-6
-------
Table 7-4. Analysis of Covariance Results: Cleaning Efficacy of Wipes
Dependent (response)
variable
Number of observations
Root mean square error
Mean response
Factor
Phosphate
Substrate
Soil type
Surface tension
Phosphate * substrate
Phosphate * substrate *
soil type
Log-transformed percentage of lead removed using baby wipes to
clean coupons
64
0.4253 (corresponding to a coefficient of variation in the
untransformed unit of 53 percent)
0.3879 (corresponding to a geometric mean in the untransformed
unit of 1.47 percent)
Degrees
of
freedom
3
1
1
1
3
7
Sum of
squares
4.70
9.68
7.14
2.00
3.19
2.60
Mean
square
1.57
9.68
7.14
2.00
1.06
0.37
F ratio
8.66
53.51
39.47
11.04
5.87
2.05
Prob>F
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0017
0.0017
0.0676
Whole-model analysis of variance test
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Degrees
of
freedom
16
47
63
Sum of
squares
30.39
8.50
38.89
Mean
square
1.90
0.18
F-ratio
10.50
Prob>F
0.0001
The geometric mean percentage amount of lead removed by wipes is estimated at
1.47 percent, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 1.32 to 1.64 percent. As seen in
Table 7-4, substrate and soil type account for a large proportion of the variance in the data
explained by the model. Except for the marginally significant three-way interaction
(phosphate content by substrate by soil type, with a p-value of 0.0676), all the effects
shown in Table 7-4 are highly significant.
Surface tension has an overall significant slope of 0.0141 ln(percentage amount of lead
removed) per dyne/cm [with a standard error of 0.0042 ln(%) per dyne/cm]. The positive
slope indicates that the percentage of lead removed by the wipe increases with increasing
surface tension, possibly indicating that a larger percentage of lead amount remained on the
coupon surface following sponge cleaning when using a cleaning solution with higher
surface tension. This finding is in agreement with that found earlier where, overall, the
sponge cleaning efficacy increased with decreasing surface tension of the cleaning solution
(Section 7.2). It should be noted that, although highly significant (p-value < 0.0001), the
slope of 0.0141 ln(%) per dyne/cm is small, especially when considering the available
range of surface tension of 30 to 70 dyne/cm.
Separately for each level of phosphate content, substrate type, and soil type, Table 7-5
shows the geometric mean (and 95 percent confidence limits) percentage of lead removed
7-7
-------
by the wipe. The results for phosphate content are also presented in Figure 7-3, showing a
lack of consistent pattern across the levels of phosphate content. The results in Table 7-5
also show that a higher percentage of lead amount is removed by the wipe from latex-
painted surfaces than from enamel-painted surfaces, and when using oily soil rather than
dry soil. This finding would suggest that latex-painted surfaces (rougher than enamel-
painted surfaces) and oily soils are more difficult to clean. In summary, the mean per-
centages of amount of lead removed by the wipe were overall in the range of 1.00 percent
to 2.24 percent, so all were relatively small and of little practical importance.
Table 7-5. Mean Cleaning Efficacy of Wipes, Separately for
Phosphate Content, Substrate Type, and Soil Types
Factor
Phosphate content
(9 P/gal)
Substrate
Soil type
Factor
0
3
11
14
Enamel
Latex
Dry
Oify
Percentage of Pb removed by wipe (%)
Mean
2.24
1.52
1.05
1.32
1.00
2.17
1.06
2.06
95% Confidence limits
Lower
1.79
1.21
0.84
1.05
0.86
1.87
0.91
1.77
Upper
2.81
1.90
1.32
1.65
1.16
2.53
1.23
2.40
Phoiphit* content (g P/gil)
|.»M««n
95% It A »»* UL
Figure 7-3. Mean Cleaning Efficacy of Wipes Versus Phosphate Content
7-8
-------
For completeness and comparison to Section 7.2, the percentages of amount of lead
removed by wipes (on log-scale) are plotted versus surface tension in Figure 7-4, separately
for the four combinations of substrate and soil type.
7.4 Residual Lead Remaining on Coupon After Sponge-
Cleaning and Wiping
Half the coupons were cleaned with a sponge and then a wipe. The results from these
64 coupons were used in this analysis. The same design factors as those used in the
analysis of covariance of wipe results apply here. The dependent (response) variable used
is as before the log-transformed percentage of lead remaining on the coupon. Again, the
denominator of the fraction is the amount of lead applied to the coupon before any cleaning
activity, not that remaining on the coupon after cleaning.
Table 7-6 summarizes the analysis of variance results. Of all the main effects included
in the model—phosphate content, surface tension (covariate), soil type, and substrate—and
their two- and three-way interactions, only the main effects for substrate and soil type
remained in the model after excluding all terms with an F-value below 1.5. In summary,
the geometric mean percentage amount of lead remaining on the coupons was 21.5 percent,
with a 95 percent confidence interval of 19.9 to 23.3 percent. Neither surface tension nor
phosphate content affected the residual lead remaining on coupons after sponge-cleaning
and wiping.
Table 7-7 shows the geometric mean residual lead remaining on the coupons,
separately for substrate and soil type. Based on this analysis, more lead remained on
enamel-painted plywood (25 percent) than on latex-painted plywood (19 percent), which
contradicts the notion that a smooth surface is more easily cleaned than a rough surface.
Also, residual lead is higher on surfaces soiled with oily soil (24 percent) than on surfaces
soiled with dry soil (20 percent); this seems intuitive, since oily soil adheres more easily to
the surface and is thus more difficult to remove. Again, for completeness and comparison
to the previous results, the percentages of amount of lead remaining on the coupons after
sponge cleaning and wiping (on log-scale) are plotted versus surface tension in Figure 7-5,
separately for the four combinations of substrate and soil type.
7.5 Residual Lead Remaining on Coupon After Sponge-
Cleaning Only
Sixty-four coupon results from the coupons that were only sponge-cleaned were
analyzed to assess the effect of the design factors on the residual lead remaining on the
coupons. The same approach as in Section 7.4 was followed. The analysis of covariance
model first included all main effects—phosphate content, surface tension (covariate), soil
7-9
-------
Enamel.Dry
Enamel.Oily
JO
a.
-1
-2
20 30 40 50 60 70
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Latex.Dry
e
£i
O-
•s -1
-2
S. 20 30 40 50 60 70
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Latex.Oily
I1
O-
"5 -1
5 -2
£ 20 30 40 50 60 70
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
JO
a.
•5 -1
-2
20 30 40 50 60 70
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Figure 7-4. Mean Cleaning Efficacy of Wipes Versus Surface Tension,
Separately by Substrate and Soil Types
7-10
-------
Table 7-6. Analysis of Variance Results: Residual Lead on Coupons After
Cleaning with Sponge and Wipe
Dependent (response)
variable
Number of observations
Root mean square error
Mean response
Factor
Substrate
Soil type
Log-transformed percentage lead remaining on coupons after
sponge-cleaning and wiping
62 (2 statistical outliers removed)
0.3079 (corresponding to a coefficient of variation in the
untransformed unit of 36 percent)
3.0682 (corresponding to a geometric mean in the untransformed
unit of 21 .5 percent)
Degrees
of
freedom
1
1
Sum of
squares •
1.08
0.47
Mean
square
1.08
0.47
F ratio
11.37
4.98
Prob>F
0.0013
0.0294
Whole-model analysis of variance test
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Degrees
of
freedom
2
59
61
Sum of
squares
1.55
5.59
7.14
Mean
square
0.78
0.09
F-ratio
8.18
Prob>F
0.0007
Table 7-7. Residual Lead on Coupons After Cleaning with Sponge
and Wipe by Substrate and Soil Type
Substrate
Enamel
Latex
Soil type
OHy
Percentage of Pb remaining on coupon (%)
Mean
25
19
20
24
95% Confidence limits
Lower
22
17
18
21
Upper
28
21
22
26
7-11
-------
Enamel, Dry Soil
Enamel, Oily Soil
I
4.U
3.5
3.0
2.5
'o ' ' '
" * °
0 0
B 2 —^
o
o
o o
0
1 1 1 1
jj-4.0
€
f 3.5
1
|3.0
ij.
^
12.5
£
1 M
20 30 40 50 60 70 $ *'2
I 1 1 1
0 °
° ° ° -
_ o
0
o
V •
1 1 1 1
0 30 40 50 60 7
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Latex, Dry Soil
'4.0
f3.5h
§>3.G
I
| 2.5;
£
2*0 30 40 50 60 70
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Latex, Oily Soil
€
3.5
1
m O f\
73.C
w
12.5
£
§on
o o
° 0
°o °
o
% 0 o
oo
• ••
1 1 1 1
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Figure 7-5. Residual Lead Remaining on Coupons After Sponge Cleaning
and Wiping Versus Surface Tension, Separately by Substrate
and Soil Types
7-12
-------
type, and substrate— and their two- and three-way interactions. Those terms with F-values
below 1.5 were excluded sequentially from the model. Table 7-8 summarizes the final
analysis of covariance results. One main effect, substrate, and a large number of
interactions remained in the model; however, most were not statistically significant at the
5 percent significance level but were retained in the model to improve the sensitivity of the
F-test for the other terms in the model. Overall, the geometric mean residual lead
remaining on the coupons after sponge-cleaning only was 24.2 percent, with a 95 percent
confidence interval of 22.2 to 26.4 percent. This percentage is slightly above that obtained
for sponged and wiped coupons (21.5 percent).
Table 7-8. Analysis of Covariance Results: Residual Lead on Coupons
After Cleaning with Sponge Only
Dependent (response)
variable
Number of observations
Root mean square error
Mean response
Factor
Substrate
Surface tension * phosphate
content
Surface tension " substrate
Phosphate content * soil type
Substrate * soil type
Phosphate * substrate * soil
type
Log-transformed percentage lead remaining on coupons after
cleaning with sponge only
64
0.3408 (corresponding to a coefficient of variation in the
untransformed unit of 41 percent)
3.1880 (corresponding to a geometric mean in the untransformed
unit of 24.2 percent)
Degrees
of
freedom
1
3
1
6
1
6
Sum of
squares
0.53
0.55
0.28
1.10
0.37
1.31
Mean
square
0.53
0.18
0.28
0.18
0.37
0.22
F ratio
4.60
1.59
2.41
1.58
3.22
1.88
Prob>F
0.0378
0.2067
0.1280
0.1754
0.0799
0.1071
Whole-model analysis of variance test
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Degrees
of
freedom
20
43
63
Sum of
squares
7.22
4.99
12.21
Mean
square
0.36
0.12
F-ratio
3.11
Prob>F
0.0009
7-13
-------
As shown in Table 7-8, substrate (enamel- or latex-painted plywood) is the only
significant effect in this model (p = 0.0378). The two interactions, substrate by soil type
(p = 0.0799) and phosphate by substrate by soil type (p = 0.1071), are only marginally
significant. Table 7-9 summarizes the geometric mean percentage amount of lead
remaining on the coupons and its 95 percent confidence limits for the two types of
substrates. As for coupons that were sponged and wiped, a large percentage amount of lead
remains on enamel-painted surfaces (26 percent) than on latex-painted surfaces
(22 percent). Again, this is counter-intuitive since enamel-painted surfaces are smoother
and therefore would be easier to clean.
Table 7-9. Residual Lead on Coupons After Cleaning with
Sponge Only by Substrate
Substrate
Enamel
Latex
Soil type
Percentage of Pb remaining on coupon (%)
Mean
26
22
95% Confidence limits
Lower
23
19
Upper
30
25
Neither phosphate content nor surface tension are significant predictors of residual
lead on coupons after sponge cleaning only.
For completeness, residual amounts of lead (on log-scale) were plotted versus surface
tension, separately for the four combinations of substrate and soil type. The plots are
shown in Figure 7-6.
7.6 Estimation of Lead Mass Balance
In contrast to the previous study,1 lead results in this study were available for all the
components in the soiling and cleaning steps. That is, the amount of soil applied to the
coupon was estimated, as was that picked up by the sponge and that by the wipe (if a wipe
was used), and that remaining on the coupon. Thus, for each individual coupon, the total
amount of lead accounted for can be estimated by simply adding up the various
components (sponge plus wipe plus coupon or sponge plus coupon). The percentage of
total lead accounted for in each cleaning test was calculated and then analyzed in the same
fashion as were previous response variables. An analysis of covariance of the log-
transformed total percentage lead was performed using all the factors—phosphate content,
surface tension (covariate), soil type, soil batch, and substrate—and their two- and three-
way interactions in the statistical model. Again, terms with an F-value below 1.5 were
excluded in a sequential fashion. The analysis of co variance results are presented in
Table 7-10.
7-14
-------
Enamel, Dry Soil
Enamel, Oily Soil
•
i
14
I
I
|3
1
B
a
h
11111
-
o
0
0 0
n oa o
0 0 „ -
O O
° 0
SJ * * f *
30 40 50 60 70 8
s
I'
£
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Latex, Dry Soil
30 40 SO 60 70 80
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
f4
I
£
I I
£
30 40 50 60 70 80
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Latex, Oily Soil
\0 30 40 SO 60 70 80
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Figure 7-6. Residual Lead Remaining on Coupons After Sponge Cleaning
Only Versus Surface Tension, by Substrate and Soil Types
7-15
-------
Table 7-10. Analysis of Covariance Results: Total Lead Accounted for
in the Cleaning Process
Dependent (response)
variable
Number of
observations
Root mean square
error
Mean response
Factor
Phosphate
Substrate
Soil bath
Surface tension *
phosphate
Surface tension *
substrate *
soil type
Log-transformed percentage of lead accounted for
127 (1 statistical outlier excluded)
0.1300 (corresponding to a coefficient of variation in the
untransformed unit of 13.9 percent)
4.5738 (corresponding to a geometric mean in the
untransformed unit of 96.9 percent)
Degrees
of
freedom
3
1
1
3
3
Sum of
squares
0.15
0.04
0.09
0.21
0.52
Mean
square
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.07
0.17
F ratio
2.98
2.62
5.27
4.17
10.16
Prob>F
0.0344
0.1086
0.0235
0.0076
0.0001
Whole-model analysis of variance test
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Degrees
of
freedom
12
114
126
Sum of
squares
1.68
1.93
3.61
Mean
square
0.14
0.02
F-ratio
8.29
Prob>F
0.0001
Overall, the geometric mean percentage lead accounted for was 96.9 percent with a
confidence interval of 94.7 to 99.1 to percent. Thus, between 0.85 and 5.28 percent of the
lead was unaccounted for. Based on the individual percentage of lead estimated in the
analyses above, a similar mean total lead percentage was accounted for:
• Sponge and wipe: 72.7 (sponge) + 1.47 (wipe) + 21.5 (coupon) = 95.6 percent
• Sponge-cleaning only: 72.7 (sponge) + 24.2 (coupon) = 96.9 percent
The slight differences among the three mass balance estimates resulted from the different
factors and the different subsets of the data used in different analysis of covariance models.
7-16
-------
From this analysis, between 0.85 and 5.28 percent of the lead applied was unaccounted
for. This small discrepancy could be due to several factors. One factor could be the
estimation of the amount of lead applied. The estimation of the quantity of lead applied to
the coupons was based on a small set of eight experiments (Section 6.2). As per recipe, the
concentration of lead would be approximately 481 ug/mL in dry soil and 463 ug/mL of oily
soil. The estimates from this study are 485.1 ug/mL (batch 1) and 491.7 ug/mL (batch 2)
in dry soil; and 389.6 ug/mL (batch 1) and 475.2 fig/mL (batch 2) in oily soil. Three of
these estimates are above recipe levels, while the fourth is well below recipe value. Thus,
overestimating the amount applied could result in underestimating the percentage
accounted for. Furthermore, as shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2, lead recovery from coupons
and sponges is in most cases well below 100 percent. Both coupons and sponges are two
new and difficult matrices from which lead was extracted using Modified EPA Method
3050A. It is likely that the consistently low lead recovery from coupons and sponges also
contributes to the deficit in mass balance.
For completeness, mass balance results (on log-scale) were plotted versus surface
tension, separately for the four combinations of substrate and soil types. These plots are
shown in Figure 7-7.
7-17
-------
Enamel.Dry
Enamel.Oily
5.2
3T s.o
?
§ 4.8
I4'6
J44
| 4.2
An
i i i i i
0
0 o
0 °<> 0 °
- o o o
0 o
o o ° °o
0 0
"" o —
1 - 1 1 . 1 1
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
£
1
I
a
$
to
a
a.i
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
An
0 0
- o -
o o
00 0
-oo
0 ° 0
-
o
1 1 1 1 1
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Latex.Dry
Latex.Oily
»M
Mass balance (%) (lo
Ik 4k. 4k 4k J
3 N> 4k b> C
— r — i i i — r
o
o
O rt O
- °o ° °° o° -
o
2*5.0
8
V
0» A A
Mass balance (%) (lo
Ik 4k 4k 4k J
D K) 4k » i
_
o o
- ° 00 0°0 o 0 0 -
o
0 ° -
o O
o o o
o
o ~
II ° L .1
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Surface tension (dyne/cm)
Figure 7-7. Total Percentage of Lead Accounted for Versus
Surface Tension, by Substrate and Soil Types
7-18
-------
Section 8
References
1. Rogers, J., Hartley, W., and Cooper, G. Laboratory Study of Lead-Cleaning Efficacy.
Report No. EPA 747-R-97-002. March 1997.
2. USEPA. July 12,1995. Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pb-Cleaning Efficacyfor
Lead Abatement in Housing, Revision No. 4. Prepared under contract by Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, MO.
3. Addition to QAPjP for Pb-Cleaning Efficacy for Lead Abatement in Housing,
Revision No. 4, July 12,1995. Appendix B-l, Analytical Procedure Modified
Method 3050A for Analysis of Lead (Pb) in Sponge Samples.
4. Addition to QAPjP for Pb-Cleaning Efficacy for Lead Abatement in Housing,
Revision No. 4, July 12,1995. Appendix B-2, Analytical Procedure Modified
Method 3050A for Analysis of Lead (Pb) in Core Samples.
8-1
-------
Appendix A
Test Schedule
-------
Table A-l (Continued)
Soil
batch
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Measurement
method
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wine
Cleaning
solution
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
Surface Phosphate
tension
30
40
40
40
40
70
70
70
70
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
30
30
30
30
70
70
70
70
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
70
70
70
70
40
40
40
40
Include
60
60
60
60
level
14
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
14
14
14
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
11
11
11
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
0
0
0
0
Soil type
Oily
Dry
Oily
Dry
Oily
Dry
Dry
Oily
Oily
Oily
Oily
Dry
Dry
Oily
Oily
Dry
Dry
Dry
Oily
Oily
Dry
Oily
Dry
Dry
Oily
Dry
Oily
Oily
Dry
Oily
Oily
Dry
Dry
Oily
Dry
Oily
Dry
Dry
Dry
Oily
Oily
precleaning test No. 5:
14
14
14
14
Dry
Dry
Oily
Oitv
Substrate
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Latex
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Latex
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Latex
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Latex
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
dry soil batch
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Test
sequence
number
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
2 on latex
85
86
87
88
A-2
-------
Table A-l (Continued)
Soil
batch
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Measurement
method
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
Cleaning
solution
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
Surface
tension
Include
40
40
40
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
70
70
70
70
60
60
60
60
Include
30
30
30
30
60
60
60
60
Phosphate
level
Soil type
precleaning test No. 6:
3
3
3
3
14
14
14
14
0
0
0
0
11
11
11
11
0
0
0
0
Dry
Dry
Oily
Oily
Dry
Oily
Dry
Oily
Oily
Dry
Dry
Oily
Oily
Oily
Dry
Dry
Oily
Dry
Dry
Oily
precleaning test No. 7:
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Include precleaning
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
No wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wipe
Wine
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
70
70
70
70
60
60
60
60
30
30
30
30
3
3
3
3
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Dry
Oily
Oily
Dry
Dry
Oily
Dry
Oily
test No.
Oily
Dry
Oily
Dry
Dry
Oily
Oily
Dry
Oily
Oily
Dry
Dry
Substrate
dry soil batch 2
Enamel
Latex
Latex
Enamel
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Enamel
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Test
sequence
number
on enamel
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
oily soil batch 2 on enamel
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Latex
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Latex
8: oily soil batch
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Latex
Latex
Latex
Enamel
Enamel
Enamel
Latex
Latex
Enamel
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
2 on latex
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
A-3
-------
Appendix B
Laboratory Data—Test and QC Samples
-------
Laboratory data for 723 (test and laboratory QC) samples are presented in this
appendix. Data for the 598 instrument QC samples are not shown here. The data are
organized by analytical instrument file name (total of IS), and within each instrument file
by analytical run number (i.e., analysis sequence). Page breaks occur after each
instrumental file. The data tables were generated in SAS with the following headers:
SAS variable name
OBS
MATRIX
INSTRMNT
PREFETCH
RUN_NO
QCJD
LAB_ID
SAMPLED)
SUBSTRAT
CLMDC
SOILTYPE
SO1LBTCH
SMPLTYPE
MIL
C
AMOUNT
SRMREC
Definition (unit}
Running observation number (1 through 723)
Matrix (wipe, sponge, core, liquid)
Analytical instrument (ICP or GFAA)
Analytical preparation batch number
Analytical run number (starts over within each instrument file)
QC ID code: Test, MB, MMB, LCS, or SRM
Laboratory ID
Sample ID; these relate to the coupons generated in the "test" (coupon
preparation laboratory). The following 5 variables are subparts of mis
variable.
Substrate (enamel or latex)
Cleaning solution number (01 through 32)
Soil type (D=dry; L=oily)
Soil batch number (1 or 2)
Sample type (all Ws=wipe; CR=core; SP=sponge; RR=rod rinse)
mL of soil applied to coupons (2 mL on enamel; 4 mL on latex)
Comment indicating whether the amount of lead is below detection
limit
Total amount of lead per sample, in ug. Note that the amounts for core
samples are not corrected for total soiled coupon surface.
Percent recovery; applies to SRM and LCS only.
B-l
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
W
to
OBS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
U
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
MATRIX
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
INSTRMNT
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
PREPBTCH
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
RUN_NO
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
102
103
104
QC_ID
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
MMB
SRM 2710
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
SRM 2710
MMB
MB
LCS
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LABJD
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2326
2327
2386
2387
2401 DF5
2421
2330
2331
2335
2336
2340
2341
2345
2346
2350
2351
2355
2356
2360
2361
2365
2366
2437 DF5
2439
2440
2441
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
•- lMLb=t
SAMPLE ID
PL12D1WW
LF12D1WW
PL12L1WW
LF12L1WW
PL14D1WW
LF14D1WW
PL14L1WW
LF14L1WW
PL16D1WW
LF16D1WW
PL16L1WW
LF16L1WW
PL16DOWW
LF16DOWW
PL19D2WW
LF19D2WW
PL19L2WW
LF19L2WW
PL32LOWW
LF32LOWW
LCS
MMB
SRM 2710
MB
PCPLL1W1
PCPLL1W2
PCLFL1W1
PCLFL1W2
PCLFD1W1
PCLFD1W2
PCPLD1W1
PCPLD1W2
PCLFD2W1
PCLFD2W2
PCPLD2W1
PCPLD2W2
PCPLL2W1
PCPLL2W2
PCLFL2W1
PCLFL2W2
SRM 2710
MMB
MB
LCS
PL21D2WW
LF21D2WW
PL21L2WW
LF21L2WW
PL22D2WW
LF22D2WW
PL22L2WW
LF22L2WW
PL2602WW
.uouy/A -
SUBSTRAT
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
LATEX
LATEX
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
CLMIX
12
12
12
12
14
14
14
14
16
16
16
16
16
16
19
19
19
19
32
32
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
26
SOILTYPE
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
I
L
D
D
D
D
I
I
L
L
L
L
L
L
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
L
L
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
SOILBTCH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SMPLTYPE
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
W1
W2
W1
W2
W1
W2
W1
W2
W1
W2
W1
W2
W1
W2
W1
W2
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
MIL
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
C AMOUNT SRMREC
5.97
52.93
14.55
37.68
4.27
24.67
11.82
49.27
15.85
24.92
17.80
54.92
< 3.44
< 3.44
7.69
49.88
8.70
47.80
< 3.44
< 3.44
101.37 101
< 3.44
4394.75 78
< 3.44
641.24
16.51
1119.60
124.99
1399.90
63.50
759.86
21.04
1480.10
136.65
831.31
93.74
764.21
37.72
1549.10
126.30
5682.00 102
< 3.44
29.36
< 3.44 3
16.26
29.82
31.16
51.40
5.96
39.81
9.49
25.20
< 3.44
370
717
600
441
-------
CO
u»
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
iriLe=tuouy'A
(continued)
DBS
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
MATRIX
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
INSTRNNT
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
PREPBTCH
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
RUN_NO
105
106
107
108
109
115
116
117
118
QC_ID
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
SRH 2710
MMB
MB
LABJD
2307
2308
2309
2398
2399
2388
2430 DF5
2433
2434
SAMPLEID
LF26D2WW
PL26L2WW
LF26L2WW
LF12D1WW2
LF12L1WW2
LCS
SRM 2710
MMB
MB
SUBSTRAT
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
LATEX
LATEX
CLMIX
26
26
26
12
12
SOILTYPE
D
L
L
D
L
SOILBTCH
2
2
2
1
1
SMPLTYPE
UW
WW
WW
WW2
WW2
MIL
4
2
4
4
4
C AMOUNT
28.24
11.27
63.58
23.82
16.37
95.03
5925.50
< 3.44
< 3.44
SRMREC
*
•
_
95 i 026
106.881
.
*
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
W
DBS
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
MATRIX
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
UIPE
WIPE
UIPE
WIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
UIPE
INSTRHNT
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
PREPBTCH
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
RUNJK)
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
85
86
87
88
QCJD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
MHB
SRN 2710
LCS
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
MMB
SRH 2710
MB
LABJD
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2389
2431 DF5
2435
2436
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2384
2385
2402 DF5
2420
•- IFILE-I
SAMPLEID
PL27D2UU
LF27D2UU
PL27L2UU
LF27L2UU
PL28D2UU
LF28D2UU
PL28L2UU
LF28L2UU
PL30D2UU
LF30D2UU
PL30L2UU
LF30L2UU
PL32D2UU
LF32D2UU
PL32L2UU
LF32L2UU
HUB
SRH 2710
LCS
MB
PL01D1UU
LF01D1WW
PL01L1UU
LF01L1UU
PL03D1WU
LF03D1UU
PL03L1UU
LF03L1UU
PL05D1UU
LF05D1UU
PL05L1UU
LF05L1UU
PL06D1UU
LF06D1UU
PL06L1UU
LF06L1UU
PL11D1UU
LF11D1UU
PL11L1UU
LF11L1UU
LCS
MMB
SRM 2710
MB
:DBWA -•
SUBSTRAT
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
CLMIX
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
30
30
30
30
32
32
32
32
01
01
01
01
03
03
03
03
05
05
05
05
06
06
06
06
11
11
11
11
SOILTYPE
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
I
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
SOILBTCH
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SMPLTYPE
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
MIL
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
C AMOUNT SRMREC
15.38
46.10
27.89
67.70
3.13
18.89
13.49
35.41
6.07
24.73
12.64
24.85
4.33
18.80
4.60
19.64
2.46
5222.50 94
93.11 93
< 2.24
12.57
32.08
27.85
61.67
12.80
55.55
33.57
47.47
10.01
59.73
19.15
46.20
6.29
49.21
13.77
66.45
4.88
37.57
8.86
21.41
98.68 98
< 2.24
5303.00 95
< 2.24
2009
1130
6790
4807
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
Cd
DBS NATRIX
107 SPONGE
108 SPONGE
109 SPONGE
110 SPONGE
111 SPONGE
112 SPONGE
113 SPONGE
114 SPONGE
115 SPONGE
116 SPONGE
117 SPONGE
118 SPONGE
119 SPONGE
120 SPONGE
121 SPONGE
122 SPONGE
123 SPONGE
124 SPONGE
125 SPONGE
126 SPONGE
127 SPONGE
128 SPONGE
129 SPONGE
130 SPONGE
131 SPONGE
132 SPONGE
133 SPONGE
134 SPONGE
135 SPONGE
136 SPONGE
137 SPONGE
138 SPONGE
139 SPONGE
140 SPONGE
141 SPONGE
142 SPONGE
143 SPONGE
144 SPONGE
145 SPONGE
146 SPONGE
147 SPONGE
148 SPONGE
149 SPONGE
150 SPONGE
151 SPONGE
152 SPONGE
153 SPONGE
154 SPONGE
155 SPONGE
156 SPONGE
157 SPONGE
158 SPONGE
159 SPONGE
INSTRMNT
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
PREPBTCH
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-16
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-11
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
RUN_NO QCJD
23 FIELD
24 FIELD
25 FIELD
26 FIELD
27 FIELD
28 FIELD
29 FIELD
30 FIELD
31 FIELD
32 FIELD
38 FIELD
39 FIELD
40 FIELD
41 FIELD
42 FIELD
43 FIELD
44 FIELD
45 FIELD
46 FIELD
47 FIELD
55 HUB
56 LCS
57 SRH 2710
58 MB
59 FIELD
60 FIELD
61 FIELD
62 FIELD
63 FIELD
64 FIELD
70 FIELD
71 FIELD
72 FIELD
73 FIELD
74 FIELD
75 FIELD
76 FIELD
77 FIELD
78 FIELD
79 FIELD
87 FIELD
88 FIELD
89 FIELD
90 FIELD
91 LCS
92 HUB
93 SRN 2710
94 MB
95 FIELD
96 FIELD
102 FIELD
103 FIELD
104 FIELD
LAB_ID
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2405
2406
2407 DF5
2438
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2371
2403
2404 DF5
2432
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
iriLC^cuoiorn RUN
SAMPLE ID SUBSTRAT
PL11D1SP ENAMEL
LF11D1SP LATEX
PL11L1SP ENAMEL
LF11L1SP LATEX
PL12D1SP ENAMEL
LF12D1SP LATEX
PL12L1SP ENAMEL
LF12L1SP LATEX
PL13D1SP ENAMEL
LF13D1SP LATEX
PL13L1SP ENAMEL
LF13L1SP LATEX
PL14D1SP ENAMEL
LF14D1SP LATEX
PL14L1SP ENAMEL
LF14L1SP LATEX
PL15D1SP ENAMEL
LF15D1SP LATEX
PL15L1SP ENAMEL
LF15L1SP LATEX
MMB
LCS
SRM 2710
MB
PL06D1SP ENAMEL
LF06D1SP LATEX
PL06L1SP ENAMEL
LF06L1SP LATEX
PL07D1SP ENAMEL
LF07D1SP LATEX
PL07L1SP ENAMEL
LF07L1SP LATEX
PL08D1SP ENAMEL
LF08D1SP LATEX
PL08L1SP ENAMEL
LF08L1SP LATEX
PL09D1SP ENAMEL
LF09D1SP LATEX
PL09L1SP ENAMEL
LF09L1SP LATEX
PL10D1SP ENAMEL
LF10D1SP LATEX
PL10L1SP ENAMEL
LF10L1SP LATEX
LCS
MMB
SRM 2710
MB
PL01D1SP ENAMEL
LF01D1SP LATEX
PL01L1SP ENAMEL
LF01L1SP LATEX
PL02D1SP ENAMEL
CLMIX
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
06
06
06
06
07
07
07
07
08
08
08
08
09
09
09
09
10
10
10
10
01
01
01
01
02
SOILTYPE SOILBTCH SMPLTYPE
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
I
D
D
|
L
o
o
•
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
I 1
D 1
D 1
L 1
L 1
D 1
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
MIL
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
C AMOUNT SRMREC
572.61
1135.80
549.20
872.28
696.63
1281.40
596.00
904.09
651.28
1177.80
507.92
668.93
514.53
1492.10
676.96
1063.70
665.18
1297.40
653.78
1076.20
2.98
94.06 94
5248.00 94
< 2.65
611.45
1193.40
514.62
925.00
753.07
1286.60
604.65
1130.10
688.82
1260.40
583.39
687.69
726.32
1247.90
751.93
1180.00
773.54
1605.70
674.43
1068.30
100.12 100
3.37
5285.00 94
< 2.65
663.43
1397.90
587.65
1013.00
713.29
062
473
120
798
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
CO
O\
1(.j Lt=tUO lOfft KUN 1 --
(continued)
DBS MATRIX INSTRMNT PREPBTCH
160 SPONGE
161 SPONGE
162 SPONGE
163 SPONGE
164 SPONGE
165 SPONGE
166 SPONGE
167 SPONGE
168 SPONGE
169 SPONGE
170 SPONGE
171 SPONGE
172 SPONGE
173 SPONGE
174 SPONGE
175 SPONGE
176 SPONGE
177 SPONGE
178 SPONGE
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
4816-5
RUN_NO
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
132
133
134
135
QC_ID
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
SRM 2710
HUB
LCS
MB
LABJD
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2368 DF5
2369
2370
2400
SAMPLE ID
LF02D1SP
PL02L1SP
LF02L1SP
PL03D1SP
LF03D1SP
PL03L1SP
LF03L1SP
PL04D1SP
LF04D1SP
PL04L1SP
LF04L1SP
PL05D1SP
LF05D1SP
PL05L1SP
LF05L1SP
SRM 2710
MMB
LCS
MB
SUBSTRAT
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
CLMIX
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
05
05
05
05
SOILTYPE
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
SOILBTCH SMPLTYPE MIL
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
1 SP
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
C AMOUNT SRMREC
1402.00
566.32
1107.70
669.41
1062.50
610.01
1186.90
931.32
1342.10
646.82
1151.50
868.78
1549.80
633.83
1230.30
5138.50 92
2.96
99.60 99
3.28
5522
5990
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
C0
OBS MATRIX
179 SPONGE
180 SPONGE
181 SPONGE
182 SPONGE
183 SPONGE
184 SPONGE
185 SPONGE
186 SPONGE
187 SPONGE
188 SPONGE
189 SPONGE
190 SPONGE
191 SPONGE
192 SPONGE
193 SPONGE
194 SPONGE
195 SPONGE
196 SPONGE
197 SPONGE
198 SPONGE
199 SPONGE
200 SPONGE
201 SPONGE
202 SPONGE
203 SPONGE
204 SPONGE
205 SPONGE
206 SPONGE
207 SPONGE
208 SPONGE
209 SPONGE
210 SPONGE
211 SPONGE
212 SPONGE
213 SPONGE
214 SPONGE
215 SPONGE
216 SPONGE
217 SPONGE
218 SPONGE
219 SPONGE
220 SPONGE
221 SPONGE
222 SPONGE
223 SPONGE
224 SPONGE
225 SPONGE
226 SPONGE
INSTRMNT
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
PREPBTCH
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
4816-24
RUN_NO
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
QCJD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
MHB
LCS
SRM 2710
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
SRM 2710
MMB
MB
LAB_ID
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2408
2416
2418 DF5
2445
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2413
2415 DF5
2417
2446
1 1- 1 Lt=tUB
SAMPLEID
PL16D1SP
LF16D1SP
PL16L1SP
LF16L1SP
PL16DOSP
LF16DOSP
PL16LOSP
LF16LOSP
PL17D2SP
LF17D2SP
PL17L2SP
LF17L2SP
PL18D2SP
LF18D2SP
PL18L2SP
LF18L2SP
PL19D2SP
LF19D2SP
PL19L2SP
LF19L2SP
MMB
LCS
SRM 2710
MB
PL20D2SP
LF20D2SP
PL20L2SP
LF20L2SP
PL21D2SP
LF21D2SP
PL21L2SP
LF21L2SP
PL22D2SP
LF22D2SP
PL22L2SP
LF22L2SP
PL23D2SP
LF23D2SP
PL23L2SP
LF23L2SP
PL24D2SP
LF24D2SP
PL24L2SP
LF24L2SP
LCS
SRM 2710
MMB
MB
IOfA KUN <
SUBSTRAT
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
£
CLMIX
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
SOILTYPE
D
D
L
L
D
D
I
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
SOILBTCH
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SMPLTYPE
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
MIL
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
C AMOUNT SRMREC
742.34
1364.80
605.81
1131.30
128.68
< 7.39
< 7.39
11.73
725.49
1335.10
775.09
1145.40
756.66
1346.40
751.23
1316.90
761.99
1420.30
811.38
1415.10
20.99
91.26 91
5369.50 96
< 7.39
699.03
1316.80
668.26
1137.60
755.74
1341.30
732.92
1146.90
589.31
1381.80
783.91
1162.70
705.38
1399.10
723.76
1280.70
666.97
1373.90
740.42
1181.60
88.41 88
5455.50 98
< 7.39
< 7.39
2590
5043
4090
4925
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
CO
00
DBS MATRIX
227 SPONGE
228 SPONGE
229 SPONGE
230 SPONGE
231 SPONGE
232 SPONGE
233 SPONGE
234 SPONGE
235 SPONGE
236 SPONGE
237 SPONGE
238 SPONGE
239 SPONGE
240 SPONGE
241 SPONGE
242 SPONGE
243 SPONGE
244 SPONGE
245 SPONGE
246 SPONGE
247 SPONGE
248 SPONGE
249 SPONGE
250 SPONGE
251 SPONGE
252 SPONGE
253 SPONGE
254 SPONGE
255 SPONGE
256 SPONGE
257 SPONGE
258 SPONGE
259 SPONGE
260 SPONGE
261 SPONGE
262 SPONGE
263 SPONGE
264 SPONGE
265 SPONGE
266 SPONGE
267 SPONGE
268 SPONGE
269 SPONGE
270 SPONGE
INSTRNNT
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
PREPBTCH
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-29
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
RUN_NO
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
QC_ID LABJD
FIELD 2088
FIELD 2089
FIELD 2090
FIELD 2091
FIELD 2092
FIELD 2093
FIELD 2094
FIELD 2095
FIELD 2096
FIELD 2097
FIELD 2098
FIELD 2099
FIELD 2100
FIELD 2101
FIELD 2102
FIELD 2103
FIELD 2104
FIELD 2105
FIELD 2106
FIELD 2107
HMB 2409
LCS 2412
SRM 2710 2419 DF5
MB 2449
FIELD 2108
FIELD 2109
FIELD 2110
FIELD 2111
FIELD 2112
FIELD 2113
FIELD 2114
FIELD 2115
FIELD 2116
FIELD 2117
FIELD 2118
FIELD 2119
FIELD 2120
FIELD 2121
FIELD 2122
FIELD 2123
MMB 2410
SRM 2710 2411 DF5
SRM 2710 2414 DF5
MB 2453
-- IFILE=I
SAMPLEID
PL25D2SP
LF25D2SP
PL25L2SP
LF25L2SP
PL26D2SP
LF26D2SP
PL26L2SP
LF26L2SP
PL27D2SP
LF27D2SP
PL27L2SP
LF27L2SP
PL28D2SP
LF28D2SP
PL28L2SP
LF28L2SP
PL29D2SP
LF29D2SP
PL29L2SP
LF29L2SP
MMB
LCS
SRM 2710
MB
PL30D2SP
LF30D2SP
PL30L2SP
LF30L2SP
PL31D2SP
LF31D2SP
PL31L2SP
LF31L2SP
PL32D2SP
LF32D2SP
PL32L2SP
LF32L2SP
PL32DOSP
LF32DOSP
PL32LOSP
LF32LOSP
MHB
SRM 2710
SRM 2710
MB
:UBlB/« -
SUBSTRAT
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
CLMIX
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
SOILTYPE
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
I
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
SOILBTCH
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
SMPLTYPE
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP .
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
MIL
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
C AMOUNT SRMREC
411.19
1178.00
473.50
1135.90
717.80
1335.20
643.87
742.64
639.91
1342.60
673.94
589.83
670.01
1482.60
736.71
1406.50
724.01
1469.60
688.27
1315.80
130.13
82.81 82
5763.50 103
< 3.40
637.36
1590.80
744.25
1340.10
645.62
1322.50
680.40
1363.40
728.28
1406.00
769.57
1239.30
< 3.40
< 3.40
11.02
70.63
< 3.40
5541.50 99
5211.50 93
< 3.40
809
884
363
715
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
W
DBS
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
MATRIX
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
INSTRMNT
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
PREPBTCH
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
•4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
RUN_NO
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
102
103
104
QC_ID
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
SRM 2710
HUB
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
SRM 2710
HUB
LCS
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LABJD
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2379
2394 DF5
2424
2442
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2376 DF5
2393
2428
2443
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
SAMPLEID
PL01D1CR
LF01D1CR
PL01L1CR
LF01L1CR
PL02D1CR
LF02D1CR
PL02L1CR
LF02L1CR
PL03D1CR
LF03D1CR
PL03L1CR
LF03L1CR
PL04D1CR
LF04D1CR
PL04L1CR
LF04L1CR
PL05D1CR
LF05D1CR
PL05L1CR
LF05L1CR
LCS
SRN 2710
MMB
MB
PL06D1CR
LF0601CR
PL06L1CR
LF06L1CR
PL07D1CR
LF07D1CR
PL07L1CR
LF07L1CR
PL0801CR
LF0801CR
PL08L1CR
LF08L1CR
PL09D1CR
LF09D1CR
PL09L1CR
LF09L1CR
PL10D1CR
LF1001CR
PL10L1CR
LF10L1CR
SRM 2710
MMB
LCS
MB
PL11D1CR
LF11D1CR
PL11L1CR
LF11L1CR
PL12D1CR
SUBSTRAT
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
CLMIX
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
05
05
05
05
06
06
06
06
07
07
07
07
08
08
08
08
09
09
09
09
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
SOILTYPE
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
I
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
I
D
D
I
L
D
SOILBTCH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SMPLTYPE
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
MIL
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
C AMOUNT SRMREC
6.93
7.08
8.48
8.07
4.59
7.13
6.18
6.58
5.53
9.44
6.32
7.15
6.89
7.56
4.88
5.08
4.16
11.13
6.23
6.72
85.98 86
5240.50 94
7.14
< 3.73
4.37
10.12
13.20
7.32
6.55
8.28
5.17
8.15
8.02
11.49
6.82
9.78
5.09
15.28
6.41
9.96
6.79
7.55
11.63
13.78
4578.35 82
5.55
85.63 85
4.15
6.09
7.59
6.61
5.48
7.43
0
6
4
6
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
CO
i—i
O
IFILE=E08227A
(continued)
DBS MATRIX INSTRMMT PREPBTCH RUM_NO QC_ID LAB_ID SAHPLEID SUBSTRAT CLMIX SOILTYPE SOILBTCH SHPLTYPE MIL C AMOUNT SRMREC
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
162
163
164
165
166
167
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
MMB
SRM 2710
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
MMB
SRM 2710
LCS
MB
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2396
2426
2429 DF5
2444
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2381
2382 DF5
2383
2447
LF12D1CR
PL12L1CR
LF12L1CR
PL13D1CR
LF13D1CR
PL13L1CR
LF13L1CR
PL14D1CR
LF14D1CR
PL14L1CR
LF14L1CR
PL15D1CR
LF15D1CR
PL15L1CR
LF15L1CR
LCS
MMB
SRM 2710
MB
PL16D1CR
LF16D1CR
PL16L1CR
LF16L1CR
PL16DOCR
LF16DOCR
PL16LOCR
LF16LOCR
PL17D2CR
LF17D2CR
PL17L2CR
LF17L2CR
PL18D2CR
LF18D2CR
PL18L2CR
LF18L2CR
PL19D2CR
LF19D2CR
PL19L2CR
LF19L2CR
MMB
SRM 2710
LCS
MB
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
I
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
7.49
7.81
6.24
6.04
8.99
5.46
11.76
8.71
8.34
6.23
9.53
5.80
9.39
5.08
12.03
91.61 91
7.34
4855.45 87
5.24
5.89
6.40
4.36
6.89
4.17
6.79
< 3.73
4.91
4.85
8.38
5.61
10.32
4.84
9.11
6.28
8.37
9.30
6.78
7.05
8.07
5.19
5271.00 95
89.33 89
< 3.73
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
10
ttJ
DBS MATRIX
367 LIQUID
368 LIQUID
369 LIQUID
370 LIQUID
371 LIQUID
372 LIQUID
373 LIQUID
374 LIQUID
375 LIQUID
376 LIQUID
377 LIQUID
378 LIQUID
379 LIQUID
380 LIQUID
381 LIQUID
382 LIQUID
383 LIQUID
384 LIQUID
385 LIQUID
386 LIQUID
387 CORE
388 CORE
389 CORE
390 CORE
391 CORE
392 CORE
393 CORE
394 CORE
395 CORE
396 CORE
397 CORE
398 CORE
399 CORE
400 CORE
401 CORE
402 CORE
403 CORE
404 CORE
405 CORE
406 CORE
407 CORE
408 CORE
409 CORE
410 CORE
411 CORE
412 CORE
413 CORE
414 CORE
415 CORE
416 CORE
417 CORE
418 CORE
419 CORE
INSTRMNT
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
PREPBTCH
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
RUN.NO
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
102
103
104
QC_ID
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
SRN 2710
LCS
MMB
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
SRM 2710
MMB
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LABJD
2328
2329
2333
2334
2338
2339
2343
2344
2348 DF2
2349
2353
2354
2358
2359
2363
2364
2454 DF5
2455
2456
2457
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2391
2392 DF5
2395
2448
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
SAMPLEID
2PCPLL1
PCPLL1RR
4PCLFL1
PCLFL1RR
4PCLFD1
PCLFD1RR
2PCPLD1
PCPLD1RR
4PCLFD2
PCLFD2RR
2PCPLD2
PCPLD2RR
2PCPLL2
PCPLL2RR
4PCLFL2
PCLFL2RR
SRM 2710
LCS
MMB
MB
PL20D2CR
LF20D2CR
PL20L2CR
LF20L2CR
PL21D2CR
LF21D2CR
PL21L2CR
LF21L2CR
PL22D2CR
LF22D2CR
PL22L2CR
LF22L2CR
PL23D2CR
LF23D2CR
PL23L2CR
LF23L2CR
PL24D2CR
LF24D2CR
PL24L2CR
LF24L2CR
LCS
SRM 2710
MMB
MB
PL25D2CR
LF25D2CR
PL25L2CR
LF25L2CR
PL26D2CR
LF26D2CR
PL26L2CR
LF26L2CR
PL27D2CR
SUBSTRAT
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
LATEX
LATEX
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
CLMIX
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
27
SOILTYPE
L
L
L
L
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
L
L
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
SOILBTCH
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SMPLTYPE
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
RR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
MIL
2
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
C AMOUNT SRMREC
783.50
20.09
1550.10
52.83
1931 .40
61.33
974.70
33.68
2004.60
42.34
964.72
26.26
909.29
20.03
1987.00
70.21
5055.50 90
86.62 86
< 2.38
< 2.38
< 2.38
4.46
< 2.38
7.45
18.26
2.80
2.75
4.68
< 2.38
3.89
< 2.38
3.41
2.78
5.72
6.83
5.60
< 2.38
3.29
4.48
3.68
89.34 89
4972.60 89
< 2.38
2.58
< 2.38
5.15
2.88
5.51
2.59
7.21
3.15
4.69
< 2.38
7304
6190
3400
8068
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
11
Cd
»«-i
to
IFILE=E09087A
(continued)
OBS MATRIX INSTRMNT PREPBTCH RUN NO QC ID LAB ID SAMPLEID SUBSTRAT CLHIX SOILTYPE SOILBTCH SMPLTYPE MIL C AMOUNT SRMREC
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
ICP
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-31
4816-32
4816-32
4816-32
4816-32
4816-32
4816-32
4816-32
4816-32
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
148
149
150
151
1^2
153
154
155
15(S
157
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
SRM 2710
LCS
MMB
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
SRH 2710
LCS
MMB
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
MMB
SRM 2710
MB
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2380 DF5
2397
2425
2450
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2332
2337
2342
2347
2378 DF5
2390
2423
2451
2352
2357
2362
2367
2377
2422
2427 DF5
2452
LF27D2CR
PL27L2CR
LF27L2CR
PL28D2CR
LF28D2CR
PL28L2CR
LF28L2CR
PL29D2CR
LF29D2CR
PL29L2CR
LF29L2CR
SRM 2710
LCS
MMB
MB
PL30D2CR
LF30D2CR
PL30L2CR
LF30L2CR
PL31D2CR
LF31D2CR
PL31L2CR
LF31L2CR
PL32D2CR
LF32D2CR
PL32L2CR
LF32L2CR
PL32DOCR
LF32DOCR
PL32LOCR
LF32LOCR
PCPLL1CR
PCLFL1CR
PCLFD1CR
PCPLD1CR
SRM 2710
LCS
MMB
MB
PCLFD2CR
PCPLD2CR
PCPLL2CR
PCLFL2CR
LCS
MMB
SRM 2710
MB
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
L
L
D
D
D
D
L
L
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
4
2
4
2
2
4
3.23
4.34
5.83
5.63
3.88
3.83
5.27
2.84
8.11
5.49
6.39
5247.50 94
74.30 74
9.21
< 2.38
3.09
5.39
3.62
4.36
2.47
6.77
3.19
7.62
3.14
5.00
4.79
3.84
4.70
3.36
2.97
3.17
4.30
4.69
7.21
8.70
5170.50 92
76.39 76
9.67
3.71
5.29
4.50
5.43
4.18
81.27 81
6.40
5113.50 92
< 2.38
3795
3010
6115
3900
2720
4015
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
12
td
DBS
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
MATRIX
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
INSTRMNT PREPBTCH
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-21
4816-25
RUN_NO QCJD
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
34
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
MMB
MB
FIELD
iriLC=
LABJD SAMPLEID
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2396
2426
2444
2184
PL11D1CR
LF11D1CR
PL11L1CR
LF11L1CR
PL12D1CR
LF12D1CR
PL12L1CR
LF12L1CR
PL13D1CR
LF13D1CR
PL13L1CR
LF13L1CR
PL14D1CR
LF14D1CR
PL14L1CR
LF14L1CR
PL15D1CR
LF15D1CR
PL15L1CR
LF15L1CR
LCS
MMB
MB
PL16D1CR
vuyuorn.
SUBSTRAT
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
ri
CLMIX
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
SOILTYPE SOILBTCH SMPLTYPE MIL C AMOUNT SRMREC
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D .
L
L
D
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
4
2
2.90
4.65
3.02
3.07
3.90
3.26
2.89
4.91
2.32
4.79
2.40
6.15
3.33
3.79
3.08
5.08
1.88
4.94
1.92
5.61
80.50 80
2.38
: 0.06
1.16
5
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
13
I
£
DBS
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
MATRIX
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
INSTRMN1
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
PREPBTCH
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-18
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
4816-20
RUN_NC
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
35
37
38
39
40
41
42
44
47
48
49
50
51
53
54
55
56
59
60
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
75
1 QC_ID
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
MMB
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
MMB
LCS
MB
LABJD
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2379
2424
2442
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2393
2428
2443
SAMPLEID
PL01D1CR
LF01D1CR
PL01L1CR
LF01L1CR
PL02D1CR
LF02D1CR
PL02L1CR
LF02L1CR
PL03D1CR
LF03D1CR
PL03L1CR
LF03L1CR
PL04D1CR
LF04D1CR
PL04L1CR
LF04L1CR
PL05D1CR
LF05D1CR
PL05L1CR
LF05L1CR
LCS
MMB
MB
PL06D1CR
LF06D1CR
PL06L1CR
LF06L1CR
PL07D1CR
LF07D1CR
PL07L1CR
LF07L1CR
PL08D1CR
LF08D1CR
PL08L1CR
LF08L1CR
PL09D1CR
LF09D1CR
PL09L1CR
LF09L1CR
PL10D1CR
LF10D1CR
PL10L1CR
LF10L1CR
MMB
LCS
MB
vuyutsrA.i
SUBSTRAT
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
•i
CLMIX
01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
05
05
05
05
06
06
06
06
07
07
07
07
08
08
08
08
09
09
09
09
10
10
10
10
S01LTYPE SOILBTCH
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L 1
D 1
D 1
L 1
L 1
D 1
D 1
L 1
L 1
D 1
D 1
L 1
L 1
D 1
D 1
L 1
L 1
D 1
D 1
L 1
L 1
D 1
D 1
L 1
L 1
D 1
D 1
L 1
L 1
D 1
D 1
L 1
L 1
SMPLTYP
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
E MIL
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
: AMOUNT SRMREC
2.66
4.41
4.60
5.45
2.39
3.05
3.19
3.44
2.83
5.18
2.89
3.86
2.74
4.18
3.65
2.37
1.70
4.91
3.11
3.11
96.00 96
2.37
0.34
1.67
7.64
7.54
3.53
5.17
4.35
2.82
3.15
3.83
6.40
3.02
6.01
2.76
12.07
3.33
6.15
3.46
5.02
7.44
7.56
2.76
86.00 86
0.89
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
1*
W
OBS
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
MATRIX
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
INSTRHNT PREPBTCH
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
4816-25
RUNJIO QC_ID
12
13
14
16
17
18
20
23
24
26
27
28
30
31
34
36
37
38
40
41
42
43
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
MHB
LCS
MB
LAB_ID SAMPLEIO
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2381
2383
2447
LF16D1CR
PL16L1CR
LF16L1CR
PL16DOCR
LF16DOCR
PL16LOCR
LF16LOCR
PL17D2CR
LF17D2CR
PL17L2CR
LF17L2CR
PL18D2CR
LF18D2CR
PL18L2CR
LF18L2CR
PL19D2CR
LF19D2CR
PL19L2CR
LF19L2CR
MNB
LCS
MB
vuyuons.
SUBSTRAT
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
CLMIX
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
SOILTYPE SOILBTCH SMPLTYPE MIL C AMOUNT SRMREC
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
I
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
3.82
2.57
4.67
1.47
2.43
2.62
1.88
2.62
4.89
2.86
9.20
1.74
6.32
2.02
5.87
6.22
4.27
2.56
5.14
1.44
95.50 95
0.32
5
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
15
CO
i—i
ON
DBS MATRIX
559 SPONGE
560 SPONGE
561 SPONGE
562 SPONGE
563 SPONGE
564 SPONGE
565 SPONGE
566 SPONGE
567 SPONGE
568 SPONGE
569 SPONGE
570 SPONGE
571 SPONGE
INSTRMNT
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
PREPBTCH
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-23
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
4816-34
RUN_NO
12
13
14
16
17
20
22
23
24
26
27
28
32
QCJD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
MMB
LCS
NB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
MMB
SRM 2710
SRM 2710
MB
LABJD
2053
2054
2055
2408
2416
2445
2120
2121
2122
2410
2411
2414
2453
•- IFILE=\
SAMPLEID
LF16DOSP
PL16LOSP
LF16LOSP
MMB
LCS
MB
PL32DOSP
LF32DOSP
PL32LOSP
MMB
SRM 2710
SRM 2710
MB
royotsre.Fi
SUBSTRAT
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
i
CLMIX
16
16
16
32
32
32
SOILTYPE
D
L
L
D
D
L
SOILBTCH
0
0
0
0
0
0
SMPLTYPE
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
MIL
4
2
4
2
4
2
C AMOUNT
2.70
3.23
15.39
25.10
107.75
0.50
1.62
4.73
12.44
2.20
4520.00
4700.00
< 0.19
SRMREC
•
.
»
,,
107.750
.
•
.
.
.
81.047
84.517
•
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
16
I
I—*
*4
OBS
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
MATRIX
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
INSTRMNT PREPBTCH
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-13
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-8A
4816-13
RUN_NO QCJD
12
13
14
17
18
20
21
24
25
26
28
31
32
33
37
38
39
40
43
47
48
49
52
53
55
56
57
69
70
72
73
74
75
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
MMB
MB
MMB
LABJD SAMPLE ID
2310
2312
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2435
2436
2260
2261
2262
2264
2266
2268
2270
2272
2274
2276
2277
2278
2279
2384
2385
2420
2389
PL27D2WW
PL27L2WW
PL28D2WW
LF28D2WW
PL28L2WW
LF28L2WW
PL30D2WW
LF30D2WW
PL30L2WW
LF30L2WW
PL32D2WW
LF32D2WW
PL32L2WW
LF32L2WW
LCS
MB
PL01D1WW
LF01D1WW
PL01L1WW
PL03D1WU
PL03L1WW
PL05D1WW
PL05L1WW
PL06D1WW
PL06L1WW
PL11D1WW
LF11D1WW
PL11L1WW
LF11L1WW
LCS
MMB
MB
MMB
vuyuy/*.
SUBSTRAT
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
M
CLMIX
27
27
28
28
28
28
30
30
30
30
32
32
32
32
01
01
01
03
03
05
05
06
06
11
11
11
11
SOILTYPE SOILBTCH SMPLTYPE MIL C AMOUNT SRMREC
D
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
D
L
D
L
D
L
D
D
L
L
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WW
WW
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
ww
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
4
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
4
17.43
29.87
2.03
19.86
12.02
42.06
4.22
25.69
14.81
25.70
2.05
19.61
3.52
19.32
87.25 87
e 0.19
12.84
39.49
30.42
13.85
39.46
7.14
23.53
6.09
15.83
2.39
45.65
7.73
31.69
99.75 99
0.37
: 0.19
2.12
25
75
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
17
W
>—*
00
OBS MATRIX
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
WIPE
1NSTRMNT PREPBTCH RUN_NO QCJD
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-8B
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-17
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
4816-12
12
13
14
15
18
19
21
22
23
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
39
40
41
44
45
46
48
51
52
53
54
57
59
60
61
64
65
66
68
69
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
MHB
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
MMB
MB
LCS
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
MMB
MB
LABJD
2280
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2288
2289
2290
2292
2293
2294
2296
2326
2327
2386
2387
2421
2331
2346
2361
2439
2440
2441
2298
2299
2300
2302
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2398
2399
2388
2433
2434
--- IFILE=V
SAMPLE ID
PL12D1WW
PL12L1VM
LF12L1WW
PL14D1WW
LF14D1WW
PL14L1WW
PL16D1WW
LF16D1WW
PL16L1WW
PL16DOWW
LF16DOWW
PL19D2WW
PL19L2WW
PL32LOWW
LF32LOWW
LCS
MMB
MB
PCPLL1W2
PCPLD1W2
PCPLL2W2
MMB
MB
LCS
PL21D2WW
LF21D2WW
PL21L2WW
PL22D2WW
PL22L2WW
LF22L2WW
PL26D2WW
LF26D2WW
PL26L2WW
LF12D1WW2
LF12L1WW2
LCS
MMB
MB
OVUV7A.F<
SUBSTRAT
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
LATEX
i
CLMIX
12
12
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
16
16
19
19
32
32
21
21
21
22
22
22
26
26
26
12
12
SOILTYPE SOILBTCH SMPLTYPE MIL C AMOUNT SRMREC
D
I
L
D
D
L
D
D
L
D
D
D
L
L
L
L
D
L
D
D
L
D
L
L
D
D
L
D
L
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
W2
W2
W2
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW2
WW2
2
2
4
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
4
5.31
12.61
21.69
3.64
20.38
7.99
14.02
20.99
13.48
2.45
0.41
5.66
7.02
0.55
0.39
86.50 86
0.34
0.24
14.43
21.12
34.47
2.47
26.81
0.21 0
14.09
27.77
27.56
4.07
9.63
23.85
3.14
25.80
9.25
21.81
15.25
97.00 97
1.02
0.58
50
21
00
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
18
CO
i—>
VO
DBS MATRIX
643 CORE
644 CORE
645 CORE
646 CORE
647 CORE
648 CORE
649 CORE
650 CORE
651 CORE
652 CORE
653 CORE
654 CORE
655 CORE
656 CORE
657 CORE
658 CORE
659 CORE
660 CORE
661 CORE
662 CORE
663 CORE
664 CORE
665 CORE
666 CORE
667 CORE
668 CORE
669 CORE
670 CORE
671 CORE
672 CORE
673 CORE
674 CORE
675 CORE
676 CORE
677 CORE
678 CORE
679 CORE
680 CORE
681 CORE
682 CORE
683 CORE
684 CORE
685 CORE
686 CORE
687 CORE
688 CORE
INSTRMNT
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
PREPBTCH
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-26
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
RUN_
12
13
14
15
16
29
31
32
33
34
35
36
40
41
42
43
44
45
49
50
51
52
53
56
58
59
60
61
62
63
67
68
69
70
71
72
74
75
88
89
90
91
92
95
96
97
JMLt=
NO QC_ID LAB_ID SAMPLE ID
FIELD 2204 PL20D2CR
FIELD 2205 LF20D2CR
FIELD 2206 PL20L2CR
FIELD 2207 LF20L2CR
FIELD 2208 PL21D2CR
FIELD 2209 LF21D2CR
FIELD 2210 PL21L2CR
FIELD 2211 LF21L2CR
FIELD 2212 PL22D2CR
FIELD 2213 LF22D2CR
FIELD 2214 PL22L2CR
FIELD 2215 LF22L2CR
FIELD 2216 PL23D2CR
FIELD 2217 LF23D2CR
FIELD 2218 PL23L2CR
FIELD 2219 LF23L2CR
FIELD 2220 PL24D2CR
FIELD 2221 LF24D2CR
FIELD 2222 PL24L2CR
FIELD 2223 LF24L2CR
LCS 2391 LCS
MMB 2395 MMB
MB 2448 MB
FIELD 2224 PL25D2CR
FIELD 2225 LF25D2CR
FIELD 2226 PL25L2CR
FIELD 2227 LF25L2CR
FIELD 2228 PL26D2CR
FIELD 2229 LF26D2CR
FIELD 2230 PL26L2CR
FIELD 2231 LF26L2CR
FIELD 2232 PL27D2CR
FIELD 2233 LF27D2CR
FIELD 2234 PL27L2CR
FIELD 2235 LF27L2CR
FIELD 2236 PL28D2CR
FIELD 2237 LF28D2CR
FIELD 2238 PL28L2CR
FIELD 2239 LF28L2CR
FIELD 2240 PL29D2CR
FIELD 2241 LF29D2CR
FIELD 2242 PL29L2CR
FIELD 2243 LF29L2CR
LCS 2397 LCS
MMB 2425 MMB
MB 2450 MB
=vuyiura.i
SUBSTRAT
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
M
CLMIX
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
29
29
29
29
SOILTYPE
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
I
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
I
SOILBTCH
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
SMPLTYPE
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
MIL
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
C AMOUNT SRMREC
1.62
4.23
4.62
2.41
11.92
3.73
2.69
5.66
2.14
2.88
2.66
3.27
2.80
3.90
10.38
6.88
1.93
3.52
5.81
3.97
99.00 99.00
2.90
2.08
2.79
3.98
2.75
3.99
2.75
7.22
2.79
3.32
2.01
3.67
3.36
7.10
3.81
3.50
1.98
6.97
2.50
12.28
6.84
9.84
72.25 72.25
7.41
1.65
-------
FIELD AND QC LABORATORY DATA
19
CD
DBS MATRIX
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
CORE
INSTRMNT PREPBTCH
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
GFAA
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-30
4816-32
4816-32
4816-32
4816-32
4816-32
4816-32
4816-32
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
4816-37
RUN_NO QCJD
12
13
14
15
16
17
21
22
23
24
25
26
30
31
32
33
34
35
39
40
41
42
43
44
48
49
50
51
52
53
55
58
59
60
61
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
HMB
MB
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
MMB
MB
FIELD
FIELD
LCS
MMB
MB
LABJD
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2332
2337
2342
2347
2390
2423
2451
2352
2357
2362
2367
2377
2422
2452
2329
2359
2455
2456
2457
--- IFILE=
SAMPLEID
PL30D2CR
LF30D2CR
PL30L2CR
LF30L2CR
PL31D2CR
LF31D2CR
PL31L2CR
LF31L2CR
PL32D2CR
LF32D2CR
PL32L2CR
LF32L2CR
PL32DOCR
LF32DOCR
PL32LOCR
LF32LOCR
PCPLL1CR
PCLFL1CR
PCLFD1CR
PCPLD1CR
LCS
MMB
MB
PCLFD2CR
PCPLD2CR
PCPLL2CR
PCLFL2CR
LCS
MMB
MB
PCPLL1RR
PCPLL2RR
LCS
MMB
MB
V091Q/A.
SUBSTRAT
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
LATEX
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
LATEX
ENAMEL
ENAMEL
r«J
CLMIX
30
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
SOILTYPE SOILBTCH SMPLTYPE MIL
D
D
L
L
D
D
I
L
D
D
L
L
D
D
L
L
L
L
D
D
D
D
I
L
L
L
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
RR
RR
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
4
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
C AMOUNT SRMREC
3.430
4.960
2.990
3.760
3.560
5.040
2.200
6.900
3.660
4.620
5.330
3.940
5.150
2.720
3.930
2.870
3.570
5.760
6.460
4.160
80.250 80
4.440
3.120
4.940
2.720
3.390
5.420
77.500 77
7.120
1.990
19.650
19.025
93.750 93
0.880
0.290
25
50
75
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction
Project (0704-0188X Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)
2. REPORT DATE
October 1998
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Final Technical Report
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Lead-Cleaning Efficacy Follow-Up Study
6. AUTHOR(s)
KarinM Bauer and Gary R. Cooper
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
EPA 68-W6-0048
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(s) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
4701-13
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
National Program Chemicals Division
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
EPA747-R-98-008
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12.a DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recommended using a general all-purpose cleaner or a cleaner made specifically for
lead for weekly cleaning of residential surfaces. EPA also recommends the use of trisodium phosphate (TSP) detergent to clean lead-contaminated
dust from surfaces after residential lead hazard control work to achieve post-abatement clearance standards. Because of negative effects of
phosphate detergents on aquatic ecosystems, EPA conducted a laboratory study in 1996797 to evaluate the cleaning efficacy of many commercial
household cleaners that could be used to remove lead-contaminated dust from residential surfaces. The study results suggested that low surface
tension cleaners remove marginally more lead dust than high surface tension cleaners.
The present study is a follow-up to the previous study. The effect of surface tension and phosphate content on cleaning efficacy was further
investigated using a wider range of these parameters and a single household cleaner. Surfaces soiled with lead-containing soil were cleaned with a
sponge, then half were wiped with a baby wipe. All cleaned surfaces were cored, and all sponges, wipes, and core samples were analyzed for lead.
This study showed that surface tension and phosphate content had no statistically significant effect on residual lead found on the test
surfaces. The weak link found in the previous study between these parameters and cleaning efficacy could neither be refuted nor strengthened.
14. SUBJECT TERMS
Environmental contaminants, lead, clearance testing, TSP, phosphate content, household cleaners, surface
tension, wipe sampling, cleaning efficacy
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
72
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION OF
REPORT
Unclassified
18. SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION OF
THIS PAGE
Unclassified
19. SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
20.
LIMITATION OF
ABSTRACT
None
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
298-102
------- |